Finalconceptdesignreport

February 2008
FINAL
City of Brockville WPCC Secondary Treatment Upgrade
Selection of Secondary Treatment and
Disinfection Technologies
Conceptual Design Report
Submitted to Submitted by
City of Brockville
WB092006004OTT 366480
Copyright © 2008 by CH2M HILL.
Reproduction and distribution in whole or in part beyond the intended scope of the report without the written consent of CH2M HILL is prohibited.
BROCKVILLE WPCC SECONDARY TREATMENT UPGRADE SELECTION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION TECHNOLOGIES
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT – FINAL
Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background..............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Objectives....................................................................................................................2
1.3 Project Scope ...........................................................................................................................2
1.4 Value Engineering ...................................................................................................................4
2. Existing Plant....................................................................................................................................7
2.1 Problem Statement...................................................................................................................7
2.2 Treatment Processes ................................................................................................................7
2.3 Flow Rates ...............................................................................................................................7
2.4 Certificate of Approval............................................................................................................7
3. Design Basis.......................................................................................................................................8
3.1 Wastewater Flow and Characteristics......................................................................................8
3.2 Septage Receiving .................................................................................................................10
3.3 Effluent Criteria.....................................................................................................................10
3.4 Receiving Water ....................................................................................................................11
4. Secondary Treatment and Disinfection Technology Review ......................................................12
4.1 Approach to Evaluation .........................................................................................................12
4.2 Conceptual Design.................................................................................................................13
4.3 Secondary Treatment.............................................................................................................13
4.3.1 Design Basis .............................................................................................................13
4.3.2 Cost Analysis............................................................................................................17
4.3.3 Alternative Evaluation..............................................................................................18
4.3.4 Recommendation......................................................................................................18
4.4 Disinfection ...........................................................................................................................19
4.4.1 Design Basis .............................................................................................................19
4.4.2 Alternative Evaluation..............................................................................................19
4.4.3 Cost Analysis............................................................................................................20
4.4.4 Recommendation......................................................................................................21
5. Conceptual Design ..........................................................................................................................22
5.1 Treatment Processes and Process Sizing ...............................................................................22
5.2 Inlet Sewer.............................................................................................................................26
5.3 Septage Receiving .................................................................................................................26
5.4 Screening ...............................................................................................................................26
5.5 Grit Removal .........................................................................................................................26
5.6 Plant Hydraulics ....................................................................................................................26
5.7 Primary Treatment.................................................................................................................27
5.8 Biological Treatment .............................................................................................................27
5.8.1 Aeration System .......................................................................................................27
5.8.2 Secondary Clarification ............................................................................................27
5.8.3 RAS/WAS Pumping.................................................................................................28
5.8.4 Scum Removal .........................................................................................................28
5.9 Disinfection ...........................................................................................................................28
5.10 Outfall....................................................................................................................................29
5.11 Sludge Digestion ...................................................................................................................29
5.12 Dewatering of Biosolids ........................................................................................................30
5.13 Biosolids Management ..........................................................................................................30
6. Review of Existing Plant Upgrade/Rehabilitation Requirements ..............................................31
6.1 Screening ...............................................................................................................................31
6.2 Grit Removal .........................................................................................................................31
6.3 Primary Treatment.................................................................................................................31
6.4 Digestion and Dewatering .....................................................................................................31
7. Civil and Site Layout......................................................................................................................32
7.1 General ..................................................................................................................................32
7.2 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................32
WB092006 366480
COPYRIGHT 2008 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL. i
7.3 Construction Considerations..................................................................................................32

7.4 Landscaping...........................................................................................................................32
8. Instrumentation and Control ........................................................................................................33
8.1 Existing Control Systems ......................................................................................................33
8.2 PLC Considerations...............................................................................................................34
8.3 SCADA Considerations.........................................................................................................34
8.4 Instrumentation......................................................................................................................35
8.5 Control System Recommendations........................................................................................35
9. Architectural Design ......................................................................................................................37
9.1 General ..................................................................................................................................37
9.2 Operations and Staff Facilities...............................................................................................37
9.3 Design Codes and Standards .................................................................................................37
10. Structural Design............................................................................................................................38
10.1 General ..................................................................................................................................38
10.2 Design Codes and Standards .................................................................................................38
10.3 Materials ................................................................................................................................38
11. Electrical Design .............................................................................................................................39
11.1 Existing Power Distribution ..................................................................................................39
11.2 New Power Distribution ........................................................................................................39
11.2.1 Distribution...............................................................................................................40
11.2.2 Lighting ....................................................................................................................40
11.2.3 Emergency Supply....................................................................................................40
11.2.4 Power Factor Correction...........................................................................................40
12. Building Mechanical Design ..........................................................................................................41
12.1 Heating ..................................................................................................................................41
12.2 Ventilation .............................................................................................................................41
12.3 Odour Control........................................................................................................................41
12.4 Plumbing................................................................................................................................41
12.5 Life Safety .............................................................................................................................41
13. Implementation Schedule...............................................................................................................42
14. Project Costs ...................................................................................................................................43
14.1 Cost Estimating Basis and Assumptions ...............................................................................43
14.2 Impact of Escalation and Market Conditions.........................................................................44
14.2.1 Escalation to Time of Construction ..........................................................................44
14.2.2 Construction Market.................................................................................................44
14.2.3 Contingency Allowance ...........................................................................................44
15. Conclusions and Recommendations..............................................................................................45
List of Appendixes
Appendix A – Value Engineering Material
Appendix B – Site Layouts
Appendix C – Evaluation Criteria and Supporting Documentation
Appendix D – BAF Vendor Proposals
Appendix E – Example Process Flow Diagram
Appendix F – Detailed Cost Information
WB092006004OTT 366480
ii COPYRIGHT 2008 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The City of Brockville (City) currently operates a wastewater treatment plant with primary treatment and sodium
hypochlorite disinfection – the Brockville Water Pollution Control Centre (WPCC). Sludge is treated using
anaerobic digesters which generate methane used for in-plant heating. The MOE issued an order to the City to
complete an environmental assessment (EA) for the upgrade of the plant to secondary treatment, which provides the
current minimum level of treatment required in the Province of Ontario. In order to reach this goal, the City has been
awarded grant funding to assist in completing a secondary treatment expansion. This grant funding is part of larger
funding initiative by the Strategic Infrastructure Fund, administered by Industry Canada, to improve water quality in
the St. Lawrence River/Great Lakes area.
The City has previously completed a number of steps to move toward its upgrade goal including completion of the
Environmental Assessment (EA) in January 2005, as required by the MOE order, and by participating in a working
group of local municipalities to study the feasibility of including a local septage receiving and treatment facility as
part of the future Brockville WPCC upgrade. The City recently completed a cogeneration feasibility study to assess
the potential for inclusion of cogeneration in the plant expansion. The study concluded that cogeneration was not
financially viable at this time. Also, the septage receiving facility is currently not being included in the plan for the
secondary expansion.
The following provides a summary of work completed to date with respect to the upgrade of the plant, or that may
provide relevant background data:
Assimilative Capacity Report, May 2004
EA report, January 2005
The City was successful with its funding request to the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund in the amount of
$30.6M, representing two-thirds of the project funding, with the remaining funds to be provided by the City.
One of the Requirements of the funding assistance is that the project be completed by March 31, 2012.
Project Chartering Session November 26, 2007
Technical Memorandum #1 –Evaluation Criteria for Selection of Secondary and Disinfection Technologies,
December 2007
Technical Memorandum #2 – Preliminary Screening of Secondary Treatment Technologies, December 2007
Technical Memorandum #3 – Design Basis, December 2007
The EA report reviewed several areas, and included the following key items:
Secondary Treatment – further evaluate three final technologies including conventional activated sludge (CAS),
biological aerated filters (BAF), and moving bed bioreactors (MBBR). These technologies were chosen based
on preliminary evaluation from a longer list of available secondary treatment technologies. This study further
evaluates the three technologies and recommends one for implementation.
Disinfection – further evaluate ultraviolet (UV) disinfection and chlorination/de-chlorination (chlor/dechlor).
This study further evaluates the two options and recommends one for implementation.
Sludge Treatment Needs – an additional digester was not indicated as a firm requirement in the EA, however,
the EA indicated that this required further review, and that an additional digester is desirable based on
redundancy for maintenance/shutdown periods for the existing two digesters. A new solids handling process has
been proposed in this report involving thickening of waste activated sludge prior to the digesters, so that the
existing digester capacity is sufficient without the requirement to construct additional digestion facilities at this
time.
Septage Receiving – the EA considered various scenarios where a Regional septage receiving facility would be
constructed at the WPCC. This option has since been eliminated and will not be included in this study.
WB092006004OTT 366480
COPYRIGHT 2008 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 1
The team of CH2M HILL and JL Richards and Associates (JLR) was selected to complete a project to carry forward
the recommendations and outcomes of the EA report, and arrive at a final recommendation for the scope of work
and selection of treatment technologies, including estimated costs, for the upgraded Brockville WPCC.
1.2 Project Objectives

The key objectives of this study are as follows:
To evaluate the options presented in the EA and decide upon the secondary treatment and disinfection processes
based on life cycle cost, operability, and suitability for the long term needs of the WPCC.
To develop a Class C/D cost estimate associated with the proposed secondary treatment and disinfection system
upgrades that will allow the City to evaluate budgetary constraints for other possible work required as part of
the secondary upgrade at the plant.
Class C/D estimates are defined by Public Works Canada and are further described in Section 14.0. A Class C
estimate is prepared with limited site information and is based on probable conditions affecting the project. It
represents the summation of all identifiable project component costs. It is used for program planning, to establish a
more specific definition of client needs and to obtain approval-in-principle. A Class D estimate is a preliminary
estimate, which due to little or no site information indicates the approximate magnitude of cost of the proposed
project, based on the client’s broad requirements. This overall cost estimate may be derived from lump sum or unit
costs as identified in the construction cost manual for a similar project. It may be used to obtain approval-in-
principle and for discussion purposes.
1.3 Project Scope

The project scope at the EA level included a high level review of available treatment technologies, disinfection
technologies, and a review of impacts of secondary treatment on existing sludge treatment and solids handling
needs. These items have been reviewed in more detail during this study at a conceptual design level.
The following items are included in the project scope of work for the upgrade to the Brockville WPCC. These items
are necessary for the implementation of secondary treatment including integration with the existing facility.
New primary effluent channel from existing primary tanks to the new secondary treatment works
New secondary treatment works – conventional activated sludge
New secondary effluent channel from secondary treatment works to new disinfection facility
New disinfection facility - ultraviolet including new duty/standby channels and UV lamp banks, controls, and
cleaning systems
New waste sludge piping from secondary treatment to a new waste activate sludge (WAS) holding tank and
thickening facility
New centrate equalization tank/pump station to store centrate from dewatering and re-introduce to the plant
during low loading periods
Ancillary systems to secondary treatment including return activated sludge (RAS) pumping, waste activated
sludge (WAS) pumping, and scum removal
New WAS thickening facility to thicken WAS prior to digestion
One new digested sludge holding tank for centrifuge feed in winter and feed to offsite sludge hauling in summer
Upgraded digester mixing including external draft tube mixers
New facilities including control room, and electrical room to house the equipment associated with the new
treatment facilities, but not intended to replace the existing administration or control facilities
New tunnels to connect the operating gallery from secondary treatment to the existing underground tunnel
system
WB092006004OTT 366480
2 COPYRIGHT 2008 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
New emergency standby power, new site electrical feed upgrade to 44 kV

Instrumentation and controls to integrate the secondary treatment system into the existing plant control system,
and any upgrades required for this integration
The following items are considered outside the scope of this project:
Off-site collection and wastewater pumping including upgrades to the Main Pumping Station
Conveyance of flows in excess of 54,500 m3/day, the current maximum rated pumping capacity of the Main
Pumping Station and the existing primary plant
Regional septage receiving facility, septage only from 280 homes within the City limits to be received at the
facility (see Design Basis section for further information)
Cogeneration not included, a cogeneration feasibility study concluded that cogeneration was not recommended
for implementation at the Brockville WPCC due to the small scale of the project and projected financial and
operations implications in the long term. This could be reviewed during preliminary design, in conjunction with
considerations such as possible needed boiler replacements, waste gas flare upgrades, and standby power for the
recommended secondary treatment plant upgrade.
Replacement of the existing remote facility/paging system as part of the instrumentation and control upgrade
A number of items have been identified by the City as operational and/or maintenance issues, that would be
desirable for upgrade or rehabilitation. A list of these items is provided in Table 1-1. These items will be reviewed in
the context of project budget, considering any available funds following the implementation of secondary treatment.
These items are discussed further in Section 6.0. A category has been assigned to each item based on the
descriptions below. The items in Table 1-1 have been listed in order of importance as identified by City operations
staff.
Category #1 – Required for secondary upgrade – i.e. a process upgrade to the existing process will be required
for proper plant functionality, and therefore this cost must be included in the secondary upgrade capital
estimate. An example might be upgrades to digestion or solids handling based on increased sludge volumes
from the secondary treatment process.
Category #2 – Desired for secondary upgrade – the change or renovation of a particular item in the existing
plant that would be beneficial to the secondary upgrade in terms of ease of operation, but not absolutely
necessary. Examples might be grit removal improvements.
Category #3 – Maintenance upgrade – an item that would improve operational efficiency at the plant however
is not essential for the secondary upgrade. This type of item would be included should sufficient budget allow
for this after completion of the secondary and disinfection upgrades, and other priority items. An example might
be modifications or improvement to the primary clarifier weirs. This type of item could be included in the
design/tender as a “provisional item” and included in the project if tender pricing is favourable.
A number of these items will be addressed as part of the recommended secondary treatment project as ancillary
upgrades to the existing facilities that would be integrated with secondary treatment design, particularly with respect
to solids handling and digestion. Section 6.0 describes the items in Table 1-1 briefly and how they may be addressed
during detailed design.
WB092006004OTT 366480
TABLE 1-1
List of Items Requiring Upgrade or Rehabilitation at the Brockville WPCC
Item No. – In
Order of
Description Category
Importance to
the City
1 Dewatering - Dewatered Centrate must flow away from Centrifuges quickly and to 1
an appropriate location within the WPCC
2 Digester Operations - Must have complete mixing of each Digester. 1
3 Dewatering - Feed Sludge must have proper blending in order to give consistent 2
feed sludge concentration to the Dewatering Centrifuge
4 Grit Removal - Must have better grit capture; grit is not fully being removed and/or 2
causing premature wear on equipment and Digesters
5 Screening - Problems with Screening Equipment and retained water, odours 2

(H2S is a H & S concern); 3/8" screen retrofit maintenance concerns; access
area to work on Screens is a H & S concern
6 Primary Tanks – Concrete: Condition of existing tanks, dead spots and access 3
areas in the tanks
7 Boilers - Must have replacement of Boilers 501 and 502; 502 is soon to be red 3
tagged o/s (safety issue)
8 Primary Tanks - Mechanical Gears and Shaft Condition Assessment 3
9 Controls - ALL PLC's require upgrade to RSLogics (current programming 2

language)
10 Primary Tanks - Effluent Gates installed to eliminate flow from weir boxes for 3
Maintenance work
11 Primary Tanks – Investigate adjustment of effluent weir to achieve better 3

hydraulic splitting at average day flows
1.4 Value Engineering

A Value Engineering (VE) workshop was held in Brockville on January 22 and 23, 2008. The objectives of this
workshop were:
To review the present findings based on the completed conceptual design
To review specific aspects of the project from a QA/QC perspective through use of focused teams looking at
areas such as site optimization, secondary/disinfection treatment process, etc.
To look at major project components for creative alternatives and ideas to add value to the project (Note that
“adding value” does not necessarily imply reduced costs, but alternative approaches that may better meet the
City’s goals and/or implementation of the project)
The VE workshop was held over two days, and was attended by a diverse group of people to provide different
perspectives on the project. A meeting agenda including the list of attendees is included in Appendix A. During the
brainstorming session of the VE workshop, attendees were broken out into groups to address different project
components as outlined in Table 1-2.
WB092006004OTT 366480
TABLE 1-2
Value Engineering Brainstorming Teams
Team Name Team Members
Site Optimization Greg Ashley

Ed Malcolmson
Jill Buckland
Dave McDonald
Umar Alfaruq
Secondary Process Brian Hein

Dan Lalande
Biosolids Hugh Tracy

Melodie Hobbs
Tim Constantine
Chris Cassidy
Existing Facilities Clare Humphrey

Barry Fox
Scott Marshall
Michael Paul
Project Delivery Conal Cosgrove

Lucas Smith
Peter Raabe
The outcome of the VE session included a number of proposals that were made by each team, as listed in Table 1-3.
The proposals were presented by each team to the entire VE group, and the recommended action as to whether or
not to include the proposal in the final design was determined based on the presented arguments for each proposal.
A detailed description of each proposal, including conceptual cost estimates (either increase or decrease to the
overall project cost) and included in the VE material, Appendix A.
The decided upon actions for each proposal are outlined in Table 1-3. Those actions that were recommended to be
carried forward have been incorporated into this final Conceptual Design Report. There are a number of proposals
that should be considered further during preliminary/detailed design, as noted in Table 1-3.
WB092006004OTT 366480
TABLE 1-3
Value Engineering Proposals and Recommended Action
Proposal
Description Team Action
Number
1 Cake Storage (Winter) Biosolids Not to be carried forward
2 Do not add 3rd digester Biosolids Carry forward
Include this item with Proposal

3 Separate WAS thickening Biosolids
#2 to be carried forward
To be evaluated during
4 New Chemical facilities (coagulation) Site Optimization
preliminary/detailed design
5 Add Intermediate pumping Site Optimization Not to be carried forward
Minimum requirements for Standby Carry forward to preliminary

6 Secondary Process
Power design
Utilize excess primary treatment

7 Existing Facilities Not to be carried forward
capacity for another use
8 Primary Sludge Degritting Existing Facilities Not to be carried forward
9 Move site closer to river Site Optimization Not to be carried forward
Optimize scum removal process from

Not to be carried forward, BAF
10A primary (only if BAF selected as Secondary Process
not selected
secondary treatment technology)
Optimize scum removal process to

Not to be carried forward, BAF
10B avoid digester (only if BAF selected as Secondary Process
not selected
secondary treatment technology)
Category #3 item – to be
considered as part of possible
plant rehabilitation/upgrade if
sufficient funds exist – not
11 Upgrade existing gas handling Existing Facilities
included in Conceptual design
for new secondary/disinfection
facilities – evaluate during
preliminary design
Not being carried forward - UV is

New chlor/dechlor with new chem
12 Secondary Process the selected disinfection
facility
technology
13 Circular clarifiers Site Optimization Not to be carried forward
14 Program Delivery Program Delivery
15 Excavation optimization Site Optimization
WB092006004OTT 366480
2. Existing Plant
2.1 Problem Statement
The existing Brockville WPCC plant does not meet the level of normal treatment, which is secondary treatment or
equivalent as stipulated in the Ministry of Environment (MOE) Guideline F-5 and Procedure F-5-1. Additionally,
the WPCC currently exceeds the existing Certificate of Approval (CofA) limits for biological oxygen demand from
time to time. The Ministry of Environment issued a Provincial Officer Order, which required the City to assess
alternative solutions to address this issue and to include a statement that the plant also does not meet the minimum
treatment standard of primary treatment. This order was addressed through completion of the EA.
2.2 Treatment Processes

The existing Brockville WPCC is a primary plant. Unit treatment processes include duty/standby mechanical
screens, aerated grit removal channels, chemically assisted primary clarification and disinfection using chlorination.
Anaerobic digestion of primary sludge is carried out, followed by sludge thickening with centrifuges for off-site use
and/or disposal. Disinfection at the existing plant is achieved by means of chlorination with sodium hypochlorite,
using a concrete contact chamber.
The existing outfall consists of a 900 mm (36”) diameter concrete pressure pipe running into the St. Lawrence River
and terminating with a diffuser system. The outfall has been inspected on the exterior within the last five years, and
was found to be in good condition, with minor repairs required to the diffusers. An internal inspection was not
completed.
The figures in Appendix B include the layout of the existing plant.
2.3 Flow Rates

The existing plant is rated to treat an average day flow of 21,800 m3/day, with a peak rate flow capacity of
54,500 m3/day. These flows are as outlined in the EA and the CofA. A majority of flows are conveyed to the WPCC
through one influent sewer from the Main Pumping Station, which is in turn fed from several smaller stations and
gravity sewers. A gravity sewer connected to the main influent sewer on the WPCC grounds conveys a small
amount of wastewater from the east of the plant.
Bypassing does not currently take place at the plant, but rather at the Main Pumping Station. By-passes at that
facility are infrequent, for example, no by-passes were recorded in 2007, and two by-pass events were recorded in
2006. Long wet weather flow periods can be experienced at the WPCC based on the inflow to the Main Pumping
Station. Consideration of wet weather flow periods up to 48 hours was included in the conceptual process design.
Currently measurement of influent flows to the plant is carried out by a Doppler meter at the head of the plant and
effluent flows are measured using a Parshall flume in the primary clarifier effluent channel, prior to disinfection.
Confirmation of flows to the plant to quantify accuracy of existing flow metering has not been carried out prior to
completion of this study and is recommended to be completed during preliminary design.
2.4 Certificate of Approval

The original existing certificate of approval (C of A) for the Brockville WPCC was not available at the time of
this study. However, amendments to the original certificate were issued as:
“Sewage Works Approval” in 1978 by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, for expansion of the original
facility including addition of two new primary clarifiers, extension of the chlorine contact tank, secondary
digester, screening and grit facilities, and associated facilities.
Amended CofA #3-1974-88-917 in November 1991, for addition of the centrifuge dewatering facility, and
upgrades to the existing digester facilities.
Amended CofA #3-1974-88-917 in August 1994, for addition of two mechanical screens, and aerated grit
removal, and installation of new inlet sewer to the tank (including abandonment of three previous smaller inlet
sewers).
WB092006004OTT 366480
3. Design Basis
3.1 Wastewater Flow and Characteristics
Table 3-1 presents flow data from 2003 to 2006 for the Brockville WPCC. Also included in this table are the
existing plant capacity, as well as future and projected flows, and population.
The flows noted in Table 3-3 are a summary of the design criteria that were used for this study. The design basis for
flows considered during process design of the secondary treatment process also included a maximum month flow
and a conservative approach to redundancy when considering average daily flow and average annual flow.
TABLE 3-1
Current and Projected Future Flows
Average Day Flow Maximum Daily Population
(m3/d) Peak Flow (m3/d)
Existing Plant Capacity (1) 21,800 54,500

(1)
2003 17,800 40,180
2004 (2) 19,700 39,900 21,475

(3)
2005 21,000 48,400
2006 (Jan to Sept) (3) 19,500 43,900
2004-2006 Average 20,000 48,400

(1)
Future Period (2014) 18,660 46,625 22,573
Future Period (2029) (1) 20,050 50,125 24,295
Design Period (2027 – 20 years) 21,800 54,500
Notes:
(1) Class Environmental Assessment Report (January 2005) – rated capacity of the existing plant
(2) 2004 Annual Summary Report (March 2005)
(3) WaterTrax Data for 2005 and 2006
WB092006004OTT 366480
Table 3-2 presents the influent loadings from 2001 to 2006 as obtained from various data sources. There was no
septage receiving during this period.
TABLE 3-2
Historical Influent Loadings
BOD5 (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TKN (mg/L)
2001-2003 (Average) 1 112 143 3 12.4

2
2004 91 142 2.7 Note 4
2005 3 90 118 2.5 Note 4
2006 (Jan to Sept) 3 86 127 2.8 Note 4
2004-2006 Average 89 129 2.7 Note 4
Notes:
(1) Class Environmental Assessment Report (December 2004)
(2) 2004 Annual Summary Report (March 2005)
(3) WaterTrax Data for 2005 and 2006
(4) TKN Data currently not available through WaterTrax database in the raw influent
The City of Brockville receives wastewater from a number of industrial facilities, which contribute to the influent
wastewater characteristics.
One particular facility has in the past caused elevated pH as high as 11 at the wastewater plant for up to one hour.
The City has indicated that pH spikes in the wastewater influent will be controlled through sewer use by-law
enforcement. Such enforcement is recommended to preclude the discharge of any substances that can have a
deleterious affect on the WPCC. It is impractical to design systems for the plant to detect and pre-treat discharges
that could upset the plant. This includes discharges of alkaline materials to the extent that they could cause a
significant plant impact.
High pH discharges are not uncommon in municipalities with industrial dischargers, particularly food processing.
These facilities employ both caustic and acidic type cleansers; however, their discharge tends to be predominantly
basic. For this reason, some facilities employ on-site pH adjustment systems which control the pH of the discharge
within by-law limits, typically between 6 and 9 or 10. Despite these controls, there are times when the effluent can
exceed the by-law, measured at the facilities point of discharge. Such incidents, in CH2M HILL’s experience, have
generally not been reported to impact plant operations.
Some level of excursions in pH can typically be tolerated by wastewater treatment plants owing to their inherent
buffering capacity. Systems that are installed that affect pH are related to maintaining sufficient alkalinity. In these
cases a basic substance such as soda ash is added to avoid pH depression which can adversely affect treatment
performance. However, total system hydraulic retention times in the range of 12 hours will tend to mitigate adverse
affects. Based on the hydraulic retention time and inherent buffering capacity, municipal treatment plants rarely, if at
all, pre-treat for pH control and it is not anticipated that this would be required at the Brockville WPCC.
Using a conservative design approach, the influent loadings from the EA and flow data as determined with the City
will be used as the basis for this project. These values are provided in Table 3-3 with rationale as to their selection as
a design basis.
WB092006004OTT 366480
TABLE 3-3
Design Basis Influent Loadings and Flows To Be Used for Secondary Treatment Conceptual Design
Parameter Raw Rationale for Use as Design Basis
Wastewater
Flow 21.8 MLD - The average day and peak flows are based on the existing plant rating and
Average Day the EA.
54.5 MLD - Peak
BOD ( mg/L) 120 From Tech Memo #4 in the EA. It represents a similar (low) strength waste
to the numbers provided in Table 1 based on recent plant data, in that the
average BOD (from 2001 to 2006) in that memo was 100 (if you average
the 2001-2003 Average, and the 2004-2006 Average).
TSS (mg/L) 160 From Tech Memo #4 in the EA. It represents a similar (low) strength waste
average TSS (from 2001 to 2006) in that memo was 136 (if you average the
2001-2003 Average, and the 2004-2006 Average).
TP (mg/L) 4 From Tech Memo #4 in the EA. It represents a similar (low) strength waste
average TP (from 2001 to 2006) in that memo was 2.85 (if you average the
2001-2003 Average, and the 2004-2006 Average).
TKN (mg/L) 25 From Tech Memo #4 in the EA. It represents a similar (low) strength waste
average TKN (from 2001 to 2006) in that memo was 12.4 (if you average
the 2001-2003 Average, and the 2004-2006 Average).
3.2 Septage Receiving

Only a relatively small contribution of septage from properties located within City limits is expected for the
upgraded plant. The number of homes is as shown in Table 3-4.
The inclusion of septage will have very little impact on average influent loadings, due to the relatively small
proportion of homes with septic tanks to the overall population of Brockville. This is based on the assumption of
280 homes representing approximately 840 people at an average of three people per household, relative to a
projected population of 24,295 in 2029. This 840 people is 3.45% of the total population of 24,295.
A location to allow haulers to unload septage into the system will be located onsite at the WPCC.
TABLE 3-4
Septage Quantities
Number
Residential 280 homes
Commercial None
3.3 Effluent Criteria

The effluent criteria for this study are as determined by the assimilative capacity study completed in May 2004 and
the EA completed in January 2005 and are listed in Table 3-5. These criteria are identical to those found in the EA,
with the exception of the total ammonia, for which the suggested criteria in the assimilative capacity study were
more conservative. The lower values for this parameter were utilized as a basis of design for this study in order to
WB092006004OTT 366480
ensure conservatism at this preliminary stage of review, as agreed to by the City at a progress meeting of December
20, 2007. Further, it should be noted that many existing plants applying for amended or new Certificates of
Approval from the Ministry of Environment (MOE) are being required to have “non-lethal” effluent, which may
remove the numerical limits for ammonia, and require that the Brockville WPCC meet the non-lethality
requirements instead. This will be determined during the detailed design stage of the project through discussions
with the MOE at the onset of the approvals process.
TABLE 3-5
Recommended Effluent Criteria – Monthly Average1
Parameter Criteria (mg/L) Design Objective (mg/L)
cBOD5 25 15
TSS 25 15
Total Phosphorus 1.0 0.8
Total Ammonia (as N) – Winter (December to 4 3

May)
Total Ammonia (as N) – Summer (June to 2 1.5

November)
E.coli 200 / 100 mL 100 / 100 mL
Notes:
(1) From “Brockville Water Pollution Control Plant Assimilative Capacity Analysis” by XCG Consultants,
May 2004 and the Class Environmental Assessment Report by Simcoe Engineering and Hydromantis
Consulting Engineers, January 2005.
3.4 Receiving Water

The Brockville WPCC discharges effluent to the St. Lawrence River. A technical memorandum entitled Brockville
Water Pollution Control Centre, Assimilative Capacity Analysis, May 12, 2004 was completed to evaluate the
potential impacts that the upgraded discharge from the Brockville WPCC could have on the receiving water and to
determine appropriate effluent criteria. The reader is referred to this document for further information, which
provides the basis along with the EA for the effluent criteria as discussed previously in Section 3.3.
WB092006004OTT 366480
4. Secondary Treatment and Disinfection Technology Review

4.1 Approach to Evaluation
Evaluation of the technologies to be selected for implementation at the Brockville WPCC for secondary treatment
and disinfection has followed a decision making process as follows:
Environmental Assessment (EA) – a long list of secondary treatment and disinfection technologies were
reviewed, including:
Secondary Treatment
Conventional activated sludge
Trickling filters/solids contactor
Rotating biological contactor
Sequencing batch reactor
Biological aerated filter
Biological nutrient removal
Membrane bioreactors
Moving bed biofilm reactors
Disinfection
Chlorination/dechlorination
Ozonation
Chlorine dioxide
Bromine chloride
Ultraviolet radiation
Environmental Assessment – a short list of technologies was recommended for further review during design.
The reader is referred to the EA report for further background information on the long list of technologies,
including the recommendation for short listing of the following:
Secondary Treatment
Conventional activated sludge
Biological aerated filter
Moving bed biofilm reactors
Disinfection
Chlorination/dechlorination
Ultraviolet radiation
Conceptual Design – a preliminary screening of the short listed alternatives for secondary treatment was
completed. Two final technologies were recommended to move forward to conceptual design for secondary
treatment – conventional activated sludge and biological aerated filters. The disinfection short list remained the
same as the EA recommendation. The moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) was removed from consideration
during conceptual design based on a preliminary screening with respect to implementation, operations and
technical considerations. The final scoring for the MBBR indicated that even with inclusion of life cycle
costing, this alternative would not reach the threshold for consideration as the recommended technology. The
evaluation criteria used throughout this study are outlined in Technical Memorandum #1, Appendix C. The
WB092006004OTT 366480
preliminary screening and results are as outlined in Technical Memorandum #2, Appendix C, with backup
materials included in Appendix C including the preliminary evaluation scoring.
Conceptual Design – a final evaluation of the short listed technologies for both secondary treatment and
disinfection was completed. The evaluation was conducted using the criteria as outlined in Technical
Memorandum #1, to arrive at final scoring for each alternative, and a scored ranking. This ranking was the
ultimate basis upon which the recommended final treatment technologies were selected. Appendix C contains
the final supporting documentation including the evaluation criteria, and scoring. Section 4.3 provides further
information of the rankings and recommendations.
4.2 Conceptual Design

Conceptual design for each technology was completed prior to the evaluation of short listed technologies, in order to
provide a basis for scoring for each evaluation criteria. This report provides a summary of the work completed
during this conceptual design.
As part of this design, site layouts were developed to illustrate possible plant footprints for the various technologies
(i.e. conventional versus BAF), potential construction staging, and future expansion areas for the secondary
treatment and disinfection alternatives. These figures are included in Appendix B. Figures 1 through 3 represent the
initial proposed site layouts for consideration during the VE workshop. The final recommended site plan is included
as Figure 4 at the end of this report, following Section 15.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations.
4.3 Secondary Treatment

The following treatment alternatives were reviewed during conceptual design:
Conventional activated sludge (CAS)
Biological aerated filters (BAF)
4.3.1 Design Basis

4.3.1.1 Conventional Activated Sludge
Table 4-1 presents a summary of the CAS design basis for this study. Conventional activated sludge for secondary
treatment generally consists of an aeration and secondary settling tank system (final clarifiers). The aeration tanks
provide an environment for biomass to grow which in turn remove pollutants in the wastewater through their
biological processes. The biomass is easier to settle out of the wastewater as it increases in size through digestion of
the pollutants, and is removed in the final clarifiers. A portion of the solids removed is recycled to the aeration tanks
to maintain a healthy biomass population, and a further portion is wasted daily and further processed through
digestion and solids handling facilities for disposal.
A process flow diagram for CAS process is included at the end of this report, following Section 15.0 – Conclusions
and Recommendations.
WB092006004OTT 366480
TABLE 4-1
Key Design Parameters for Process Sizing – Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS)
Treatment Unit Design Basis
Screening − Existing process sizing sufficient for design flows
Grit Removal − Existing process sizing sufficient for design flows
− Existing process sizing sufficient for design flows, and possibly up to 40,000 –
Primary Clarification
45,000 m3/day based on an average SOR of 40 m/d
− HRT = 7.2 hours @ Average Daily Flow
− SRT = 10 days
Aeration
− MLSS = 2,900 mg/ L
−
3 3
Total volume = 6,600 m (3 tanks @ 2,200 m )
− Conceptual Design based on water depth of 5.5 m
− Sizing = 12 m/d @ Average Day Flow
− Based on Surface Overflow Rate (SOR) at max day flow = 26 m/d

Final Clarification
− Total surface area = 1800 m2 (3 tanks @ 600 m2 each)
− Dimensions based on water depth of 5.0 m
−
3
Sized to treat up to 54,500 m /d hydraulically and up to a maximum month
3
flow of 25,000 m /d with a UV Transmittance (UVT) = 60% for secondary plant
effluent
Disinfection
− Peak flows will receive disinfection at a lower level, however, the system is
designed to meet the regulatory requirement of 200 E. coli/100 mL as a
monthly geometric mean
− Anaerobic digester volume sized to achieve SRT > 15 days at peak month
Digestion solids loading
4.3.1.2 BAF
Two vendors were consulted during conceptual design for the BAF process: John Meunier (Biostyr®) and
Degremont Technologies (Biofor®). These vendors are the two main suppliers of this technology, representing all of
the installations in Canada to date. The following provides a brief background on the BAF process from each of the
two vendors, as each process is slightly different due to the proprietary nature of the systems. The process
descriptions are taken directly from text provided by the vendors with minor modifications. The vendor proposals
and information are included in Appendix D.
Biofor
The Biofor® filter is a Submerged Biological Aerated Filter (SBAF) designed to treat primary effluent for removal
of carbonaceous and nitrification oxygen demand, and total suspended solids from the waste stream (Biofor® C and
N). Because of the modular design concept, the quantity of filters can be reduced or increased to accommodate the
treatment capacity today (flow and load) and in the future.
WB092006004OTT 366480
Biofor – Principle
Treated
Water
Media Wash
Water Air Water
Outlet
Process Air
(Oxygenation)
Wash Water
Water to be
Scour Air treated
Aerated biological filtration combines in a single step both biological degradation of biodegradable soluble matter
and solids retention by mechanical filtration of suspended solids. Clarifiers downstream are not needed.
Biological filtration is achieved in up-flow filters loaded with a suitably sized granular support media, thus
providing an efficient filtration effect. The filter media provides adequate support for biomass attachment and a
mechanical filtration capability.
Process air provides the necessary oxygen for aerobic biological activity and is introduced in the media through a
network of diffusers (Oxazur) located at the base of the reactor. Oxygen transfer is achieved in the media due to the
up-flow pattern of air bubbles. The biological filtration process is of the submerged bed type.
Co-current up-flows of air and water allow for the finest particles to accumulate towards the upper reaches of the
support media thus avoiding system clogging; suspended matter becomes attached through the full height of the
media which allows for long filter runs. The influent must be screened to avoid clogging of the filter nozzles.
During treatment biomass accumulates in the support bed because of the bacterial growth due to the elimination of
dissolved pollution and the retention of suspended solids in the raw water, and of the biological flocs.
Periodic backwashing is necessary. The frequency varies from 24 hours to 48 hours depending on the loadings
applied and the treatment objectives. The filter wash is of the co-current type and the techniques are similar to those
applied to sand filters for potable water using simultaneous water and air. Treated water is used for running the
wash sequences. The wash sequence is designed so that it causes no damage to the support medium yet retains the
biomass required for rapid restart of the bio-filter after backwash. This ensures that the biofilter can immediately
return to service with the desired treatment efficiency.
Biostyr
The Biostyr® process belongs to the family of biological aerated filters and can be designed to remove BOD and
TSS, and provide nitrification, and/or denitrification. The filter media acts as a filter for the physical removal of
suspended solids, while providing ample surface area for the attachment of a biofilm. The purpose of the biofilm is
to achieve biological treatment of the soluble influent contaminants.
The influent wastewater is first brought to a common inlet feed channel above the Biostyr® cells where it flows
down to the individual cells by gravity. Upon entering the Biostyr® cells, the wastewater flows upwards through the
filter media. The media is composed of specially treated expanded polystyrene beads covered by active biomass.
Ceiling plates with regularly spaced nozzles are used to retain the filter media in the cell. The nozzles allow the
treated water to enter a common water reservoir above the filters, which in turn is used to provide water during
backwash sequences.
WB092006004OTT 366480
A process air grid is located below the filter media so that the entire filter bed is aerated. BOD is oxidized by the
biomass in the lower section of the filter. As the wastewater continues up the filter, additional BOD is consumed.
When the BOD:TKN ratio falls below a certain limiting level, nitrification occurs, thereby reducing the ammonia
level in the wastewater by converting it to nitrates.
Growth of biomass and the retention of suspended solids in the filter media make periodic backwashing necessary.
The Biostyr® process is designed for a backwash interval of 24-72 hours (typically), depending on the application.
The backwash phases are fully automatic and are triggered either when an operator adjustable time limit has expired
or when the head loss across the filter exceeds a pre-determined setpoint. Water from the common treated water
reservoir flows down through the filter by gravity, thereby fluidizing the media. The process air grid located below
the media is also used to supply scouring air during the backwash sequence. The grids are regularly spaced pipe
laterals with small orifices that produce a uniform, coarse-bubble pattern over the full cross-section of the filter.
Table 4-2 provides a summary of the BAF design basis, showing each item from the two vendors. The conceptual
design for these proposals, including quantity estimation and costing, was based on the Biofor proposal, which did
not include co-thickening, and which has a larger footprint, i.e. a more conservative design basis. Neither vendor
provided proposals with one cell off-line at all times to allow for redundancy and conservatism in the design at the
conceptual design stage. Therefore quantities and costs have been increased to allow for one additional cell (i.e. 9
cells as opposed to eight based on the Biofor design) to ensure direct comparison to the conventional activated
sludge process from the redundancy perspective. The two vendor proposal costs for their proprietary system and
equipment were very similar.
WB092006004OTT 366480
TABLE 4-2
Key Design Parameters for Process Sizing – Biological Aerated Filter (BAF)
Parameter Units Design condition Design condition
Biostyr Biofor
Number of cell off-line at all times - 0 0
Number of cell in backwash - 1 1

2
Total number of cells required - 5 8 (4 C/4 N)
Cell surface area m2 65 40
Total filtration surface m2 325 320
Media height m 3.5 3.9
Media size mm 3.6 2.7

1
Filtration rate ADF (including co-thickening flow) m/h 3.6 6.5
Filtration rate PHF (including co-thickening flow) 1 m/h 7.0 7.1
Filtration rate ADF (including co-thickening flow) @ N-11 m/h 4.5 8.6
Filtration rate PHF (including co-thickening flow) @ N-11 m/h 8.7 8.1
Aeration rate ADF, summer (average flow) m/h 5.7 5.7
Number of filters in backwash simultaneously - 1 1
Maximum Number of backwash per day per cell - 1 1
Design backwash rate m/h 60 20
30 (energetic wash)
Unit backwash water volume m3/cell 570 523
Daily backwash water volume m3/day 2850 2092 (Biofor C Cell

once per day)
1046 (Biofor N Cell

once per two days)
Total headloss through Biostyr process (approx) mm WC 3000 Not provided
(1) Biostyr includes co-thickening, Biofor design based on separate WAS thickening.
(2) Note that the vendor proposals did not include an off-line redundant cell for allowance during maintenance
periods, etc. therefore one additional cell was considered during conceptual design to allow for redundancy as
described in the report text preceding this table.
A process flow diagram for the BAF process is included in Appendix E.
4.3.2 Cost Analysis

Life cycle costing was completed and included both capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. Table 4-3
presents a summary of these costs, with further information and explanation provided in Section 14.0. The reader is
requested to review Section 14.0 for details on assumptions and exclusions for these costs.
WB092006004OTT 366480
The capital costs of the two technologies are quite close, with CAS being slightly less. With respect to present worth
on a life cycle basis, that is, the capital and O&M costs, CAS is lower than the BAF alternative. The O&M costs for
BAF are higher than CAS, this is due to the greater number of pumps/blowers, etc. that are be included in a BAF
process.
TABLE 4-3
Comparison of Secondary Treatment 20-Year Life Cycle Costs
Item CAS BAF
Capital Cost $11,400,000 $11,700,000
O&M Cost (20-year) $2,832,800 $3,250,600
Life Cycle Cost (20-year) $14,232,800 $14,950,600
4.3.3 Alternative Evaluation

The CAS alternative requires a greater footprint than the BAF process, as can be seen from Figures 1, 2 and 3,
Appendix B. As noted previously, further consideration of redundancy of BAF cells (right now each supplier has
considered one cell out of service during backwashing for their peak filtration rate calculations) was considered and
an additional cell was assumed to be required. At this time, we have conservatively chosen the larger of the two
footprints provided by the vendors, that is, the Biofor footprint which included eight filtration cells of 40 m2 each,
with the addition of the redundant cell.
The footprint of each technology has not only impact in terms of future expandability on site, but also impacts the
construction layout and construction risk in terms of site access, and difficulty in construction. However, the BAF
option with smaller footprint does limit the amount of construction that would be required to the south of the site,
where increasing slopes toward the river may make construction more difficult.
It was assumed that the tanks will be constructed to allow for gravity flow for conventional activated sludge,
therefore we have assumed preliminary underside of the tank elevations of 86.0 metres. For biological aerated filter
during conceptual design, an assumed underside elevation of 82.5 was used as this construction is deeper than
conventional activated sludge due to the multi-level tank design for the BAF facilities. The hydraulic headloss for
secondary treatment and disinfection has been assumed to be 2.0 m for conventional activated sludge, and was used
in determining the assumed conceptual underside of tank elevation. For biological aerated filter, the underside
elevation was determined based on the vendor submission. Hydraulic gradeline through the BAF facilities is
determined by the vendors based on their proprietary processes. Intermediate pumping has been assumed to be
required for the BAF facilities, due to the higher headloss through the process (due to the media filtration) therefore
a cost for intermediate pumping at the BAF facility has been included in our cost estimate for that technology.
With respect to process performance and ability for the treatment processes to meet future effluent requirements,
such as a potential for nitrification, the CAS process is expected to be somewhat more easily adaptable, especially
with respect to meeting more stringent effluent ammonia limits, if required. CAS is also more easily adaptable to
denitrification and biological phosphorus removal, although it is questionable whether this would be required in the
future. Meeting more stringent effluent ammonia limits with BAF may require either additional BAF trains or a two
stage BAF configuration (i.e. organic removal stage followed by a nitrification stage). In the case of more stringent
ammonia effluent requirements, it is possible that the performance guarantee for the BAF would be changed. Both
processes are expected to be able to meet the effluent limits with respect to TSS, BOD, and TP without difficulty.
4.3.4 Recommendation
The CAS alternative is recommended as the secondary treatment process for the upgraded plant based on the
evaluation criteria and scoring developed with the City. The final score for CAS was a total of 8.2 out of a total
possible 10 points, whereas the BAF alternative scored a total of 7.2 points. The CAS alternative also scored higher
during the preliminary evaluation, and because the life cycle costs were not lower, the BAF technology did not
move ahead in scoring over the CAS process.
WB092006004OTT 366480
4.4 Disinfection
The reader is referred to the EA report for further background information on the technologies, including the
recommendation to review these final technologies out of a long list of alternatives for disinfection at Brockville.
4.4.1 Design Basis

The disinfection facilities are to be designed to disinfect the effluent of the Brockville WPCC to meet necessary
bacteriological guidelines prior to discharge to the St. Lawrence River. The disinfection criterion at the plant is
expected to be an E. coli concentration of 200 cfu/100 mL (monthly geometric mean), with a design objective of 100
cfu/100 mL. The disinfection process would be sized to disinfect the peak flow of 54,500 m3/d.
For chlorination/dechlorination it is assumed that the system is sized for disinfection of 200 cfu/100mL at maximum
day flow, as stated in the design basis, Section 4.0. For this type of system, the combination of chlorine residual
concentration and effective disinfectant contact time in a contact basin is used to quantify the capability of the
disinfection system to provide effective pathogen inactivation, referred to as contact time or “CT”.
For UV disinfection the system is also sized on the basis of 200 cfu/100mL at maximum day flow. UV design takes
into consideration the hydraulic design for the channels within which the UV reactors are installed, the UV dose and
UV transmittance (UVT) of the lamps in order to determine the required number of lamps and power requirements
to the lamps. The expected water quality of the secondary effluent at the Brockville WPCC has been assumed to be
at 60% UVT and 15 mg/L suspended solids at this stage of design.
For UV at Brockville, two UV channels are proposed. These would each be sized hydraulically for the peak flow of
54,500 m3/d, thus one channel could pass peak flow with the other out of service, if necessary. Disinfection
capability to meet the required effluent disinfection would also be included in both channels allowing for full
duty/standby capacity, allowing for maintenance on one channel as required. The UV systems have the capability of
providing lower power to the lamps using flow pacing, to allow for lower power use over the life of the system.
4.4.2 Alternative Evaluation

The two disinfection alternatives have been evaluated based on technical requirements. Table 4-4 summarizes the
evaluation.
TABLE 4-4
Disinfection System Alternative Evaluation
Parameter Chlorination/Dechlorination Ultra-Violet Disinfection
Safety to operators − Involves strong chemical handling and − Minimal chemical handling involved,
storage, risk to operators chemicals are used only occasionally for
cleaning lamps
Environmental − Possible formation of disinfection by-products − UV bulbs are returned to a recycler after
Impacts replacement with new bulbs (service
− Risk of discharge of chlorinated effluent should
provided free of charge for by some
dechlorination system fail
vendors)
− Non-toxic effluent
Proven Technology − Most commonly used disinfection process for − Being operated in many small to medium-
wastewater treatment sized wastewater treatment plants with
proven success
Performance − Capable of meeting disinfection requirements − Capable of meeting disinfection
requirements
− More robust for disinfection of effluents with
varying quality, and for by-pass disinfection if
required
Complexity − Simple process − Simple process
− Chlorination is currently practiced at the plant, − More operator training required
therefore operators are familiar with system
WB092006004OTT 366480
TABLE 4-4
Disinfection System Alternative Evaluation
Parameter Chlorination/Dechlorination Ultra-Violet Disinfection
Space Impacts − Larger footprint − Smaller footprint
O&M − Regular maintenance to chemical equipment − Occasional manual cleaning of lamps may
be required
− Chemicals would need to be delivered
regularly − Lamp replacement
− Cleaning of equipment as necessary − Requires greater standby power capacity
Reliability − Highly reliable − Highly reliable
− Readily adaptable for use in disinfection of
primary by-passes if desired in future
The requirements for UV design could require up to a 20% increase in UV dose, as BAF often requires a larger UV
system to account for the larger possible particle size in the BAF effluent due to the sloughing of solids from the
fixed film process. UV vendors are currently beginning to look into new BAF installations to ascertain the possible
increase at this time. Chlorination/dechlorination systems are generally considered to be more robust in terms of
overall process operation in variable effluent situations. Should future treatment by-passing be incorporated into the
future plans for the Brockville WPCC, as opposed to the by-pass at the existing Main Pump Station, disinfecting
primary effluent (the minimum level of treatment required for emergency by-passes) using UV should also be
considered. The existing chlorine contact tank could be employed in this situation.
UV disinfection is often considered the more environmentally friendly disinfection technology from the perspective
of formation of disinfection by-products and “non-toxic” effluent.
From a performance and complexity perspective, both systems are comparable, although the UV system would
require some additional operations training and familiarization as chlorination is currently practiced at the plant and
UV would be a new type of system.
4.4.3 Cost Analysis

Life cycle costs, i.e. capital and O&M, over a 20-year period are outlined in Table 4-5. Operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs are higher for the chlorination/dechlorination system due to the required chemical supply. The cost for
sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulphite delivery is approximately $97,000/year (a conservative value that
assumes the design flow throughout the design period, which could ultimately be lower with lower flows in the early
years of the 20 year life cycle period). This is significantly higher than the cost for cleaning and maintaining the UV
system, which has been estimated at $54,000/year, which includes the cost of bulb replacement based on preliminary
information provided by a supplier. The power consumption of the UV system is higher than that of the
chlorination/dechlorination system, but that does not outweigh the cost of chemical delivery.
TABLE 4-5
Comparison of Disinfection System Costs
Item UV Chlorination/Dechlorination
Capital Cost $1,200,000 $700,000
O&M (20-year) $666,800 $1,298,800
Life Cycle Cost (20-year) $1,866,800 $1,998,800
WB092006004OTT 366480
4.4.4 Recommendation
The recommended disinfection process for the Brockville WPCC is UV disinfection, based on the evaluation of the
technology as included in Appendix C and described in the previous sections. The weighted scores for both
alternatives were essentially equal, as they were 7.5 for both UV and chlorination/dechlorination. As the scores
showed advantages to either process, the UV process was selected by the City based on operations staff input. The
estimated overall life-cycle cost of the UV disinfection system is lower than that of chlorination/dechlorination. UV
disinfection is proven and reliable and requires a smaller footprint than chlorination/dechlorination, while having
minimal risk to the environment and operator health and safety.
WB092006004OTT 366480
5. Conceptual Design
The following sections outline the unit treatment processes that will comprise the final treatment train at the
Brockville WPCC. This section includes a review of each unit process, whether existing as part of the primary
treatment plant, or part of the new secondary and disinfection treatment processes. Each section describes the
evaluation of the unit process, and what the requirements are for the upgrade or expansion in order to implement the
selected secondary treatment process.
Section 6.0 discusses the possible items that could be upgraded that are either Category #2 or Category #3, i.e. not
required for secondary treatment or are maintenance items, based on the priority items identified by plant staff as
described in Section 1.3. Category #1 items are included in the following sections, as they would be required for the
secondary upgrade, such as the centrate equalization tank.
5.1 Treatment Processes and Process Sizing

Process modeling was completed to determine process sizing, including required volume (aeration tanks) or surface
area (clarifiers) for secondary treatment processes. Existing treatment processes were also reviewed to determine
whether their current sizing will be sufficient to accommodate the inclusion of secondary treatment. Consideration
was given to, among other things, the peak month raw wastewater loading, the redundancy requirements to allow for
adequate treatment when one tank is taken out of service, as well as the flexibility to initiate chemically enhanced
primary treatment and/or step feed. In all cases, the process design required that equalization of the dewatering
centrate followed by night time return of this liquor to the liquid train to maintain effluent quality with respect to
ammonia. A whole plant mass balance simulator was used to determine the process sizing, and thus includes items
such as recycle streams (e.g. digester supernatant and centrate). Residuals from the City’s water treatment plant are
sent to the WPCC, therefore, the data provided by the City and in the EA includes these solids.
The proposed treatment processes for the Brockville WPCC following the upgrade to secondary treatment and
proposed design basis are outlined in Table 5-1.
TABLE 5-1
Treatment Processes and Design Parameters
Treatment Unit New/Existing Design Basis
Screening Existing Existing process sized based on peak flow up to 54,500 m3/d
Grit Removal Existing Existing process sized based on peak flow up to 54,500 m3/d
Primary Existing Existing process sized based on 21,800 m3/d average day, peak flow up
Clarification to 54,500 m3/d
3 3
Aeration New Sized to treat flow of 21,800 m /d average day, and 54,500 m /d peak
instantaneous
Final Clarification New Sized to treat flow of 21,800 m3/d average day, and 54,500 m3/d peak
instantaneous
3
Disinfection New UV Disinfection sized to treat flows up to 54,500 m /d, duty/standby
channels
Digestion Existing Existing digesters checked based on sludge production from existing
primary process and new secondary process – new WAS thickening to
be added to economize on digester capacity and allow for secondary
sludge to be digested without additional digester construction
3
Dewatering Existing Existing process reviewed for flows up to 132 m /day or 2640 kg/d at 2%
dry solids (projected solids feed rate with secondary treatment)
WB092006004OTT 366480
Table 5-2 provides the key design parameters used for process sizing at the conceptual design level. Process design
should be reviewed and refined at the preliminary design stage as required.
TABLE 5-2
Key Design Parameters for Process Sizing – Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS)
Treatment Unit Design Basis
Screening − Existing process sizing sufficient for design flow
Grit Removal − Existing process sizing sufficient for design flow
− Existing process sizing sufficient for design flow, and possibly up to 40,000 –
Primary Clarification 45,000 m3/day based on an average SOR of 40 m/d without co-thickening (i.e.
separate WAS thickening to occur)
− HRT = 7.2 hours @ Average Daily Flow
− SRT = 10 days
Aeration
− MLSS = 2,900 mg/ L
−
3 3
Total volume = 6,600 m (3 tanks @ 2,200 m )
− Conceptual Design based on water depth of 5.5 m
− Sizing based on Surface Overflow Rate (SOR) = 12 m/d @ Average Day

Flow, 26 m/d at max day flow
Final Clarification − Total surface area = 1800 m2 (3 tanks @ 600 m2 each)
− Dimensions based on water depth of 5.0 m
− Two channels (duty/standby)each sized to treat up to 54,500 m3/d with an

Disinfection assumed UV Transmittance (UVT) = 60% for secondary plant effluent
Digestion − Anaerobic digester volume sized to achieve HRT > 15 days at peak month
solids loading, existing digesters considered sufficient with separate WAS
thickening to be added
− Based on manufacturer’s requirements – centrifuges are existing and were

Dewatering checked based on data in Table 5-1
WB092006004OTT 366480
Table 5-3 outlines proposed process equipment in terms of number of units, and basic unit sizing. Tank area and
volume are rounded in some cases, such as the area of the clarifiers. The proposed sizing is based on conceptual
level process modeling and calculations, and is approximately only. Final sizing for new processes and equipment
should be reviewed during preliminary design.
TABLE 5-3
Summary of Process Tankage and Equipment Sizing
Treatment Unit Number of Units and Basic Sizing
SCREENING1
No. of Screens Existing - 2 (duty/standby mechanical)
No. of Screening Washer/Compactors Existing - 1

1
GRIT REMOVAL
No. of Grit Tanks Existing - 2 (1 duty, 1 standby)
Volume of tanks (m3) total 103
Volume per tank (m3) 52
Dimensions per tank
Length (m) 7.6
Width (m) 3.7
Depth (m) – liquid 3.66
PRIMARY CLARIFICATION1
No. of tanks Existing - 4

2
Primary clarification area (m ) total 1160
2
Primary clarification area (m ) per tank 290
Dimensions (each tank) Approximate dimensions from existing drawings
Length (m) 29
Width (m) 8
Depth (m) 4.0
AERATION
No. of Aeration Tanks 3
Total Aeration Tank volume (m3) 6,600
Volume per Aeration Tank (m3) 2,200
Dimensions (each tank)
Length (m) 27
Width (m) 15
Depth (m) 5.5
Aeration Blowers 4 (3 duty, 1 standby), Variable Frequency Drives
WB092006004OTT 366480
TABLE 5-3
Approximately 75 kW (100 HP)

3
Process Air (per tank) 2178 m /hr, average daily flow
3
3267 m /hr, peak flow
FINAL CLARIFICATION
No. of final tanks 3
Final clarification area (m2) total 1800

2
Final clarification area (m ) per tank 600
Dimensions (each tank)
Length (m) 40
Width (m) 15
Depth (m) 5.0
Scum Pumps 3 (one duty per tank)
Approximately 1.5 kW (2 HP)
RETURN AND WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
RAS Pumps 6 (1 duty, 1 standby per aeration/secondary tank)
RAS Pumping Rate 100% of Average Day Flow returned to aeration tanks
Approximately 11 kW (14 HP)
WAS Pumps 4 (1 duty per tank, 1 common standby)
WAS Pumping Rate Governed by minimum pipe size of 4” and velocity of 1

3
m/s – therefore pumping in the range of 650 m /d –
typically operated from 3-15 minute per hours
Approximately 3.7 kW (5 HP)
BIOSOLIDS TREATMENT
Type of Digester1 Existing - Anaerobic
No. of Digesters1 2 – Both operated as primary

3 1
Digester volume (m ) total 2,180
3 1
Digester volume (m ) per tank 1,060
WAS Holding Tank New - 120 m3
Digested Sludge Holding Tank New - 120 m3
SLUDGE DEWATERING
Type of Equipment1 Centrifuge
No. of Units1 Existing - 2 (Duty/standby)
WB092006004OTT 366480
TABLE 5-3
Capacity (m3/d) per centrifuge1 5,103 kg/d at feed solids concentration of 2.7% (operated
5 days/week, 7 hours/day)
Centrate Holding Tank 100 m3
(1) – Information from previous studies, such as EA and EA background material.
The following sections briefly outline the design basis and assumptions for the unit processes in addition to the
information provided in the previous tables, which will be further refined during preliminary and detailed design.
5.2 Inlet Sewer

The main influent trunk sewer that conveys sewage to the existing WPCC consists of a 750 mm diameter pipe that
flows into the existing screening facility. No changes are proposed to the influent sewer as part of the secondary
treatment project.
5.3 Septage Receiving

No special provision has been made for septage receiving at the upgraded plant for this study. Only 280 houses
within the City limits will be permitted to utilize the WPCC for septage disposal, and therefore it is assumed that this
septage will be offloaded using a simple septage receiving facility at the WPCC to be included as part of the
preliminary design.
5.4 Screening
The existing screening process has sufficient capacity to treat the peak flow of 54,500 m3/day which is the rated
flow for the existing plant. No changes to the screens are required in order to implement secondary treatment using
CAS.
5.5 Grit Removal

The existing grit removal process has sufficient capacity to treat the peak flow of 54,500 m3/day which is the rated
flow for the existing plant. No changes to the grit removal system are required in order to implement secondary
treatment.
5.6 Plant Hydraulics

The WPCC hydraulics will be governed by the elevation of the existing primary clarifiers, which have a weir
elevation of approximately 92.8 m. As the St. Lawrence River is much lower than the treatment plant site, there is
no concern with available hydraulic head on the outfall side of the plant within which to fit the secondary treatment
system.
Items such as rock excavation and groundwater table should also be taken into account when considering a proposed
hydraulic gradeline for the expanded plant, in order to assess where in elevation to place the new tanks. It is
preferable from an operations perspective to avoid intermediate pumping of primary effluent, as this adds a pump
station to the project, requiring ongoing operations and maintenance costs (i.e. pumping energy) and staff time. A
VE proposal included review of this decision with respect to intermediate pumping, and it was not recommended to
use intermediate pumping based on lack of benefit and operational issues such as increased long term O&M costs,
site aesthetics, and risks during power failure.
For this study, the design basis is for gravity feed to the new secondary treatment plant from the existing primary
clarifiers. This will likely involve considerable rock excavation, as knowledge of existing plant construction and
previous geotechnical reports (e.g. in the area of the screening/grit facility) indicate bedrock close to the surface at
the plant site. Therefore, we have assumed the most conservative estimate of excavation/rock removal by assuming
WB092006004OTT 366480
all excavation will be rock blasting. With respect to blasting versus hoe-ramming of rock, it was reported during
previous construction of the dewatering facility that hoe-ramming was a slow construction method, and thus, we
have assumed rock blasting will be necessary for the large amount of excavation required for secondary treatment
construction at Brockville.
With respect to groundwater, we have assumed no significant groundwater elevation in the tank excavations at this
stage of the study, again, based on previous knowledge during the screening/grit facility construction, where no
groundwater flow into the excavation was encountered.
Both the rock elevation and groundwater elevation assumptions will need to be confirmed during preliminary
design, upon completion of the geotechnical study.
A detailed hydraulic gradeline will be required during preliminary design, and confirmation of the decision with
respect to required pumping to the new secondary plant determined at that time.
The disinfected effluent will be discharged to the river via a connection to the existing outfall downstream of the exit
point from the existing chlorine contact chamber, which will be determined during the detailed hydraulic analysis.
5.7 Primary Treatment

The existing primary treatment process at the Brockville WPCC consists of four rectangular primary clarifiers of
approximately 32 feet wide and 98 feet long (9.8 m by 29.8 m). Each tank therefore has approximately 291 m2 of
surface area, for a total of 1164 m2 for all four tanks. These tanks are sufficient to provide primary treatment at an
average day flow of 21,800 m3/day and a peak flow of 54,500 m3/day. A review of the tank capacity indicates that
these tanks may provide treatment up to 40,000-45,000 m3/day at the current loadings.
The original two tanks at the plant were built as part of the original plant construction in 1963, with an additional
two tanks added in 1978. It is recommended that a condition assessment of the primary clarifiers be completed as
part of preliminary design as deterioration of concrete in the tanks has been noted by operations staff.
5.8 Biological Treatment

5.8.1 Aeration System
Supply of oxygen to the secondary treatment process is a critical component of a biological treatment system. Three
aeration tanks, supplying oxygen to the biomass, will be constructed for the upgraded Brockville WPCC. The supply
of oxygen is achieved through the use of blowers and diffusers that supply a uniform amount of air across the tank.
The aeration tanks will have three passes, and will normally operate in plug flow mode, with aeration diffusers
evenly distributed throughout the passes. The option will exist to operate in “step feed” mode, where influent to the
aeration tanks can be distributed to the first pass, beginning and end of the second passes. The return activated
sludge (RAS) is fed to the beginning of the aeration tank.
Fine bubble diffusers are proposed for the aeration tanks. The aeration tanks will require approximately 2178 m3/hr
of air per tank at average flow conditions, and 3267 m3/hr during peak flow conditions, based on preliminary
calculations. Air flow will be confirmed during preliminary design.
It has been assumed that four blowers will be supplied, one duty blower for each tank, and one common standby,
each rated at approximately 75 kW (100 HP) and with variable frequency drives (VFD). Each blower will be
capable of providing approximately 3300 m3/hr. The VFDs will allow for turndown of the blowers during normal
aeration duty and for higher output as needed for process control. Further analysis during detailed design should be
carried out to determine whether provision of inlet valve throttling would provide sufficient flexibility for blower
turndown as compared to VFDs.
The blowers would be located in the basement gallery between the aeration and secondary clarifier tanks.
5.8.2 Secondary Clarification

Three secondary clarifiers are proposed, each having a width of 15 m, a length of 40 m, and a side water depth of 5.0
m. The clarifiers are proposed to be of a “Folded Gould” design, which has been used successfully at many plants,
and allows for the tanks to be designed in a more compact footprint, with greater length to width ratio than a
standard clarifier. This type of tank was selected for the Brockville plant, based on site constraints requiring the
WB092006004OTT 366480
tanks to be as short as possible to fit within site space, and maintain access to the tanks and allow for expansion in
the future. The Folded Gould design uses two passes in the clarifier.
The clarifier surface overflow rate at average day flow will be 12 m/d and 26 m/d at maximum day. This design
allows for the flexibility to provide adequate clarification and thickening even for sustained peak flows (i.e. in
excess of a day at the 54,500 m3/day peak) for sludge SVIs at or below 150 mL/g with all clarifiers and aeration
tanks in service.
Sludge collection in the clarifier will take place using three sludge collection mechanisms, two running
longitudinally in the tank, and one cross collector that runs across the width of the tank. The sludge collectors will
be chain and flight type. The sludge collectors will pull sludge to a sludge hopper at the opposite end of the tank
from the effluent launders, where piping will convey the sludge to the return and waste activated sludge pumps.
Rake speed for sludge collection in the clarifiers would normally be within the range of 0.3-0.6 m/min.
5.8.3 RAS/WAS Pumping

Pumping of sludge from the secondary clarifiers to the aeration tanks maintains active biomass in the aeration tanks.
This is referred to as “return activated sludge” (RAS) pumping. In the upgraded Brockville WPCC, six RAS pumps
are proposed, each sized at approximately 11 kW (14 HP). This arrangement will allow for one duty pump and one
standby pump per tank. The RAS pumps will be located in the basement gallery between the new aeration and
secondary clarifier tanks. RAS pumping has been sized for a flow rate of 100% of the average influent flow to the
plant. It may be possible to consider reducing the number of standby pumps through common standbys, which
should be further evaluated during preliminary design.
A portion of sludge from the secondary clarifiers will be wasted on a regular basis. The waste cycle can be
automated for a certain time period or volume on a timed basis (for example, 10 minutes of every hour), or can be
performed according to operator preference. This is referred to as “waste activated sludge” (WAS). In the upgraded
Brockville WPCC, there are four proposed WAS pumps, each sized at approximately 3.7 kW (5 HP). WAS flow
rates are based on the minimum discharge line size of 4” and a velocity of 1 m/s to accommodate pumping of solids,
therefore, the pumps would have a flow rate in the range of 650 m3/day. Each tank will have a duty pump, with cross
connection so that the standby pump can waste sludge from any clarifier should one duty pump be out of service.
The WAS pumps will be located in the basement gallery between the new aeration and secondary clarifier tanks.
It is sometimes suggested that WAS pumps can be eliminated by allowing sludge wasting off of the RAS lines. This
is not a recommended practice due to the significant difference in hydraulic head conditions between the RAS and
WAS lines, and the requirement for pinch valves for control of flow. This has been practiced at other plants, with
limited success, and the pinch valve often requires significant maintenance. Dedicated WAS pumps are
recommended.
5.8.4 Scum Removal

Scum will be collected from the secondary clarifiers using the clarifier’s chain and flight mechanisms, which collect
sludge in the submerged portion of the tank, and scum with a blade mechanism at the top of the tank. Scum will be
collected into one scum pit in each clarifier, where it will be pumped to the digester for further treatment.
Three scum pumps will be provided, one for each clarifier tank. The scum pumps will be located in the basement
gallery between the aeration tanks and clarifiers. A size of 1.5 kW (2 HP) has been assumed for the scum pumps.
5.9 Disinfection
Disinfection of treated wastewater will be achieved using UV disinfection. The UV system will consist of two
channels which would be capable of providing full duty/standby UV treatment. Consideration should be given to
optimizing this design during preliminary design, which could include reducing the UV requirements such that both
channels would be required during peak flow from a UV treatment perspective, and only hydraulically size the
channels for peak flow. With this design, at lower plant flows, all the flow through the plant would be disinfected
through one UV channel. At higher flows, the inlet gate to the second channel would open and the flow would split
evenly between the two channels. This will reduce the power costs of the UV system, and should be considered
during preliminary design. However, in order to compare the UV and chlorination/dechlorination systems fairly and
equally, full duty/standby systems have been included in this conceptual design and this provides a more
conservative design approach at this stage.
WB092006004OTT 366480
Each channel would be hydraulically designed to convey the full plant peak flow of 54,500 m3/d. The MOE’s
compliance limit and design objectives for disinfection are generally 200 E. coli/100 mL and 100 E. coli/100 mL
respectively based on a monthly geometric mean. The UV unit were sized to provide the required disinfection based
on UV transmittance of 60% and 15 mg/L suspended solids at the conceptual design level.
The proposed design involves one bank of UV lamps in each channel, each with nine modules containing eight
lamps. Therefore, each channel will have 144 lamps in total. The power consumption of this system would be 36
kW per hour with all lamps operational on full power, during maximum flow. The UV system information should be
confirmed during preliminary design. The information provided in this study is based on a preliminary quotation
from one UV system vendor.
The proposed system will have automated mechanical/chemical cleaning, reducing the frequency at which the lamps
would require removal for cleaning.
5.10 Outfall
The existing outfall pipe consists of a 900 mm (36”) diameter concrete pressure pipe that was installed with the
original WPCP. The outfall is a submerged discharge with eight 10” diameter diffuser outlets, and was originally
installed with four diffusers open, and four blanked closed.
The exterior of the outfall has been inspected twice within the last 5 years, and showed that the current outfall
condition is good, with minor repairs required to the diffusers. Outfall hydraulics should be confirmed during
detailed design to determine if any additional diffusers require opening to account for increased flow over the years
since original construction. It is recommended than an interior inspection of the outfall is conducted during
preliminary design.
5.11 Sludge Digestion

The Brockville WPCC currently operates two digesters in primary digestion mode. The digesters were constructed
in 1963, and as such, a condition assessment of the existing tanks is recommended during preliminary design. These
digesters will provide sufficient capacity for sludge digestion after the upgrade of the plant to secondary treatment
with incorporation of separate WAS thickening and other improvements as outlined further in the following
paragraphs. Digester capacity and requirement for new digesters should be reviewed during preliminary design and
following the condition assessment.
This decision with respect to the existing sufficient digester capacity is sensitive to a number of items which were
considered in making the recommendations for this study:
Minimum hydraulic retention time (HRT) = 15 days (per MOE). If lower HRTs occur, more rigorous testing
would be required to demonstrate Class B biosolids production.
Requirements of the biosolids end use – what level of stabilization is required? – the City currently has a
contract with an environmental contractor to remove biosolids for landfill at a private landfill during winter, and
with a local farm for spreading of liquid biosolids in summer – further definition of required level of treatment
of biosolids and anticipated future consideration must be determined. Currently no biosolids are landfilled
within the City as the City landfill is closed.
Assumed primary and secondary sludge feed concentrations
Peak month volatile solids loading
Digestion redundancy requirements/contingency – i.e. what is done when a digester is out of service?
A number of design conditions were evaluated for digestion on a preliminary basis to determine the final
recommended solution for digestion at the upgraded plant. This included an investigation of an aggressive design
basis at an average day raw wastewater flow of 21,800 m3/day (using historical more dilute sewage characteristics,
average annual raw sewage loadings, and thickening in the primary clarifier to 3.5% solids) as well as a standard
(fairly conservative) design basis (Class EA stronger sewage characteristics, maximum month raw sewage loadings,
and thickening in the primary clarifier to only 3.0% solids).
WB092006004OTT 366480
Using the more aggressive design basis with dilute sewage and thicker co-thickened solids from the primary
clarifiers, at a flow of 21,800 m3/day, there may be sufficient digester capacity, as there would be approximately 11
days HRT when one tank is out of service. It would be difficult to justify that the existing digesters can meet a
design flow basis with any average day flow greater than the existing rated plant capacity. Using the conservative
and more typical design approach with the raw wastewater influent values from the EA, the existing two digesters
would not be considered sufficient as 15 days HRT with both digesters in service would not be reached.
Co-thickening of the primary and secondary solids was not a desired process from the operations perspective at the
Brockville WPCC based on VE outcomes. To address concerns with capacity and operations of the digesters, the
following is recommended for implementation at the Brockville WPCC. This will address handling of biosolids
while making use of the existing two digesters without the requirement to construct a new digester and associated
facilities:
New separate WAS thickening (which may allow for an effective sludge feed concentration up to 5%, thereby
increasing the overall digestion capacity) consisting of a WAS holding tank of approximately 120 m3, and a
WAS thickening facility using drum thickeners and a polymer feed system. Thickened WAS would be pumped
to the digesters for further treatment.
Upgrade of the existing digesters to include external draft tube mixing to improve mixing.
New digested sludge holding tank of approximately 120 m3 to store digested sludge for feed to the dewatering
facility in winter, and directly to hauling for land application in summer. This tank could be included in a new
facility to be constructed east of the existing dewatering building that would house WAS thickening, digested
sludge holding, and centrate equalization facilities. This would combine all of these items into one common
facility that would facilitate any odour control requirements and is near existing sludge dewatering and truck
loading facilities.
New centrate holding tank/pumping station combined with the sludge holding tank as discussed further in
Section 5.12.
5.12 Dewatering of Biosolids

Dewatering of digested sludge is currently done using two centrifuges. The capacity of these centrifuges is expected
to be sufficient to dewater the projected sludge volumes with the addition of secondary treatment. Confirmation with
the centrifuge supplier with respect to the sludge feed dry solids is required to ensure that the existing centrifuges are
sufficient with respect to dry solids feed concentration, and this should be confirmed during preliminary design.
It is recommended that a centrate holding tank and pumping system be constructed to store centrate liquid from the
centrifuge dewatering process. This will allow controlled return of this material to the primary treatment process,
thus equalizing the loading on the treatment plant during peak daytime hours. This centrate pumping station has
been included in the costing for the secondary treatment upgrade as a Category #1 item.
5.13 Biosolids Management

No change to the current biosolids disposal program is expected. Brockville currently dewaters sludge during the
months of November through April and this material is removed by an environmental contractor for disposal at a
private landfill. In the summer months, liquid biosolids are land applied through a partnership with a local
contractor. The digested biosolids produced at the Brockville WPCC may be increased in quality through
improvements recommended to the digestion process resulting in a more concentrated product. Currently biosolids
produced at Brockville are considered Class B, and no provision has been made to produce a Class A product as part
of the upgrade project.
WB092006004OTT 366480
6. Review of Existing Plant Upgrade/Rehabilitation Requirements

As previously outlined in Section 1.3, Scope of Work, there are a number of items that are considered to be
operations and maintenance issues at the existing plant. These items are addressed in the following sections, by
process area, with recommendations for potential upgrade and/or rehabilitation should project funds be available
following implementation of secondary treatment.
It is recommended that upgrade items identified as priorities by the City be included in the detailed design and
tender process for the secondary treatment upgrade as provisional items, which could be selected for construction
based on the final tender bids.
6.1 Screening
Two existing mechanical screens with 3/8” opening size are located in the screening building. These screens were
installed during a retrofit improvement during 2004/2005. Operations staff report consistent problems with
maintenance of these screens, including misalignment of the bars/rake, causing rake tooth breakage, and difficulty in
accessing the screens for maintenance.
Odour control has also been reported to be an issue, although an existing carbon odour control system is in
operation.
A condition assessment and mechanical review of these screens is recommended to determine what improvement
could be made concerning the rake alignment and maintenance issues. Replacement of the screens would not be
recommended given their relatively recent replacement. Operation of the odour control system and regular
maintenance procedures should also be reviewed, including a capacity analysis, to determine what improvements
could be made.
6.2 Grit Removal

Review of the existing grit tanks including removal of the scum removal system and opportunities for optimizing the
aerated grit removal “tank roll” should be completed. The existing grit tanks reportedly do not efficiently remove
grit, therefore carry over of the grit into the primary tanks and digestion/dewatering systems cause premature wear
and increased maintenance requirements for equipment.
6.3 Primary Treatment

Tank access to the existing primary clarifiers and concrete condition deterioration are reported problems from
operations staff. To determine the extent of rehabilitation that may be required, a condition survey of the existing
primary clarifiers is recommended during preliminary design. Additionally, some maintenance items such as
mechanical gears and shafts on the clarifier drives, effluent gates and weirs require replacement or rehabilitation.
6.4 Digestion and Dewatering

Improved blending of the digested sludge to the dewatering centrifuges and improved digester mixing are desired in
order to improve efficiency of biosolids management at the plant. Ongoing issues with dewatering consistency and
control are experienced.
This item will be addressed through the proposed changes to the existing plant that would be required as part of the
secondary treatment upgrade, including addition of draft tube mixers to the existing digesters and a digested sludge
holding tank for feed to the centrifuge. Further, the existing system does not convey centrate efficiently away from
the dewatering centrifuges. This item will also be addressed through the addition of a centrate equalization tank and
pumping system that is necessary as part of the secondary treatment upgrade to equalize centrate feed to the
treatment process.
The above items that will improve existing digestion and dewatering are included in the cost estimate for the
secondary treatment plant upgrade.
WB092006004OTT 366480
The following sections provide suggested concepts for the new secondary plant and disinfection facilities. The
proposed concepts will require review at the preliminary design stage, when more detailed information is available
regarding the selected process, actual equipment, geotechnical information, and further consultation with Hydro
One. These sections are provided at the conceptual design stage in order to provide the City with the vision for the
future plant at the time of completion of this report, and it should be understood that items are subject to change as
the design process progresses.
7. Civil and Site Layout

7.1 General
The secondary expansion is to be constructed on a portion of the site to the south-east of the existing plant. The
orientation of the plant was recommended to be in the east/west direction based on the outcome of the VE workshop
and review of the proposed site layout options shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3, Appendix E.
The recommended site layout is shown in Figure 4 following Section 15.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations.
The sizes of the recommended facilities such as the new WAS thickening/digested sludge storage/centrate
equalization facility, and UV disinfection facilities are based on typical equipment layouts from similar secondary
treatment plant projects. Typical layouts for these types of facilities are included at the end of this report, following
Section 15.0. These layouts are representative only, in order to show the type and number of pieces of equipment
that are assumed will be included in the Brockville WPCC and were included in the cost estimates for conceptual
design. The actual facility layouts will be developed more specifically during preliminary and detailed design. A
typical pump/blower gallery layout for the Renfrew WPCP has also been included as a reference for typical
piping/valving layout as a sample to the reader.
The topography of the site is sloped toward the river, with a steeper slope beginning south of the existing primary
clarifier tanks. Site layouts have been proposed in consideration of the existing topography, which generally indicate
that construction immediately south of the primary clarifiers would be difficult due to the steep slopes, limited
access for construction and the existing outfall pipe below grade.
With respect to site access, it is recommended that a temporary access road for plant staff and
deliveries/maintenance vehicles be constructed to the west of the site, as shown on the Figures in Appendix B. This
road will separate daily operations traffic from construction traffic, and also allow for isolation of the construction
site using fencing for plant security, also as shown on the proposed site layout figures. Gates at the entrance road to
the construction site could be installed, as well as at the entrance to the plant facility if needed.
7.2 Utilities
Extension of the existing natural gas feed to the plant may be required to service new heating as the HVAC design
progresses, and an allowance for this cost has been considered. Also, effluent service water and potable water
service allowances have been included to provide water to the new facilities as needed.
7.3 Construction Considerations

Construction and maintenance requirements for erosion and sediment controls are to comply with Ontario Provincial
Standard Specification (OPSS) 577. The contractor will be required to submit an erosion and sediment control plan.
7.4 Landscaping
Landscaping will be determined during detailed design. An allowance for landscaping has been included in the
conceptual cost estimates.
WB092006004OTT 366480
8. Instrumentation and Control
8.1 Existing Control Systems

The existing control system within the plant consists of four Allen-Bradley PLC5/25 programmable logic controllers
and two Allen-Bradley ControlLogix PLCs, communicating over a mixed copper and fibre based Data Highway
Plus (DH+) network. The controls for the main sewage pumping station that feeds the treatment plant consist of a
single Allen-Bradley PLC 5/15 PLC, communicating back to PLC4 in the treatment plant’s admin building over a
serial based DF1 network. The plant’s original Allen-Bradley 1771 PLC I/O is distributed about the facility,
terminated in the same four control panels housing the PLC5/25 CPUs. The two sludge dewatering centrifuges are
each controlled by a ControlLogix PLC and a PanelView Plus operator interface terminal, located in the upper floor
of the Dewatering Building.
Two desktop grade SCADA computers utilize GEFanuc iFix 4.0 HMI software for monitoring, control and
historical data collection of the various plant processes. Each SCADA computer simultaneously polls all plant PLCs
with individual connections to the DH+ network via internal Allen-Bradley 1784-PKTX DH+ communication cards.
One computer is located in the main control room within the administration building and the other is located in an
auxiliary control room within the Dewatering building. Each PC is configured for both iFix view and server
functionality, operating on Microsoft Windows XP, in a small workgroup configuration. At present, iFix support and
maintenance is provided both internally by Town of Brockville staff and a local Systems Integrator.
Plant historical data is independently stored, collected and displayed on each SCADA computer, however no
permanent automated back-up or historical data synchronization system is in place between the two SCADA
computers in the event of historical data loss. Plant operations staff indicated that Historical data is backed up
manually with the use of an external USB storage device. Historical trends can be printed from each computer;
however no automated reporting system appeared to be in place. Manual, time based historical paper log sheets are
maintained in the main control room by Operations staff.
The SCADA PCs and printers are networked together by a 10/100 Mbps copper and fibre Ethernet network,
utilizing TCP/IP protocols. Operations staff indicated that for security purposes, no permanent connection exists
between the Plant’s SCADA Ethernet network and the Town’s corporate Ethernet network. Figure 9-1 outlines the
existing PLC and SCADA system networks and the associated PLC hardware used within each plant process area,
including the recent controls refurbishment of the two sludge dewatering centrifuges.
FIGURE 9-1
Existing Plant PLC & SCADA System Schematic
WB092006004OTT 366480
Some existing plant alarms and most remote facility telemetry uses a combination of a now obsolete Modudata
alarm annunciation system and a more modern Raco Verbatim Gateway alarm dialler. The various remote facilities
utilize smaller Modudata hardware at each site, relaying status and alarms signals over telephone lines to the main
Modudata system located at the plant. From this point, these signals are then hardwired to PLC4 in the
Administration building. Once the signals and alarms are within this PLC, they are displayed on the iFix computer
screens. Critical remote facility and plant alarms are then transmitted by the PLC to the Raco alarm dialler, typically
via DF-1 communications, for alarm callout. The existing Raco alarm dialler will be retained for use by the existing
systems and those new systems to be added to the plant for secondary treatment. Operations staff also indicated that
some remote facility control functionality was intended by use of the Modudata system, however it was never
implemented.
Replacement of any remote facility communication systems has not been included in the scope of this project, as the
existing Modudata system does not require replacement or modification for the implementation of secondary
treatment at the plant. Additionally it is anticipated that this system will not be expanded for use with the plant’s
new secondary treatment systems as neither the necessary new components or physical space are available to do so.
It is understood from discussions with the plant staff that the City is pursuing replacing the existing remote facility
communications systems with either fibre or wireless based communications. Once these upgrades are completed
and the various remote facilities can communicate directly with the plant control system (i.e. at the PLC or SCADA
levels), the Modudata system would become redundant and it recommended for removal at that time as part of that
project.
8.2 PLC Considerations

In a number of instances, some existing PLC components used within the control system have effectively reached
obsolescence. Some examples include the Allen-Bradley PLC5/15 and PLC5/25 CPUs, having passed their
respective “Silver Series” dates on September 30, 2001. This means that these specific components are no longer
manufactured, nor are they offered for general sale. In this specific example, these legacy products do have new,
readily available replacement components; however they are available at an increased cost and would require some
partial re-programming of the existing PLC code before operations could be restored after a failure.
Some specific items identified with the existing systems include:
Desire to update existing PLC5 hardware to more modern PLCs, improving SCADA system performance,
minimizing maintenance costs
Poor to non-existent documentation within the existing PLC code making maintenance and troubleshooting
very difficult
Staff concerns regarding the “as-built” accuracy of the PLC panel and associated loop drawings
Poor reliability, performance and documentation regarding the existing Fibre DH+ network
Inherent difficulties and limitations with maintain and expanding the existing legacy DH+ networks to properly
integrate the new Secondary Treatment control systems
Requirement to expand or replace the existing plant SCADA Ethernet networks to properly integrate the new
Secondary Treatment control systems
8.3 SCADA Considerations

As previously indicated, the plant’s SCADA system consists of two desktop grade SCADA computers running
GEFanuc iFix 4.0 HMI software. Although these computers were replaced when the iFix software was upgraded to
version 4.0, the life expectancy of these computers in this 24-hour per day operating environment is typically
between three to five years. As such, it may be prudent that these computers are replaced and the iFix software,
including its associated drivers, is updated to the latest stable versions, when the new plant processes come on line.
Some specific issues identified with the existing systems include:
Frequent, un-synchronized alarms on one SCADA computer when compared to the second computer
WB092006004OTT 366480
Frequent, un-synchronized trends on one SCADA computer when compared to the second computer
Ongoing software support and maintenance needs
No automated data and system backup system
Minimal physical security of the SCADA computers in the present locations
8.4 Instrumentation
In consultation with operations staff, no specific issues or needs were identified regarding instrumentation within the
existing facility that requires addressing at this time. Our cursory inspection of the various plant instruments
indicated they are suitably maintained and operational. It was noted that some of the facilities electromagnetic flow
meters are quite dated and may present issues with obtaining spare parts, however a complete meter replacement can
normally be readily sourced from present day manufacturers and suppliers. It was also noted that the specific model
of MSA gas detection equipment, located in the electrical room, adjacent to the Screening room, is not longer being
manufactured. However spare parts such as the sensing cells and service of these systems remains available. If any
specific instrumentation is deemed in need of replacement as part of this project, these can be reviewed on an
individual basis with consideration for replacement given to those instruments of highest priority to continued plant
operations.
8.5 Control System Recommendations

In order to address the items identified for consideration in the preceding text and to better facilitate the addition of
the secondary treatment systems controls, Figure 9-2 provides a preliminary conceptual design of the plant’s overall
PLC and SCADA systems and networks. New or replaced components are green, while existing components are
grey.
The following is a text summarizing the proposed changes and additions in the context of the issues and items
identified:
Outright replacement of all PLCs, the associated PLC panels, I/O and field wiring change out is neither
justified, nor is it recommended because of the risk associated with extended system downtime during
changeover. As such, it is recommended that the existing PLC5 1771 I/O remain in place with new
ControlLogix PLCs located in a small panel adjacent to each existing panel, replacing the legacy PLC5 CPUs
within each panel
Small, localized ControlNet networks are provided between the new ControlLogix CPUs and each of the
existing PLC5 1771 I/O racks
Replacement of the legacy DH+ copper and copper networks between the various PLCs and SCADA computers
with a copper and fibre based Ethernet network(s). Note that this will require substantial modifications to the
existing SCADA databases as the drivers and corresponding addressing will require changing
Addition of a new SCADA view node located in the new Aeration Building
Addition of various ControlLogix PLCs for the added Secondary Treatment and disinfection systems
WB092006004OTT 366480
FIGURE 9-2
Conceptual Plant PLC & SCADA System Schematic
WB092006004OTT 366480
9. Architectural Design
9.1 General
The proposed expansion of the Brockville WPCC would generally include the addition of new secondary treatment
facilities with ancillary facilities such as access tunnels, and electrical service/communications service buildings,
and possible miscellaneous upgrades to the existing plant. The majority of the expansion work would consist of
open tanks that are semi recessed into the terrain with modest control building or buildings between the tanks.
The exterior cladding of the new buildings would be in keeping with an expression similar to the existing facility.
The intent would be to use exterior cladding finishes and colours that will compliment, and visually integrate the
new structures into the existing facility.
9.2 Operations and Staff Facilities

As part of the secondary upgrade renovations to the existing staff facilities including the change rooms will be
required to accommodate additional staff members. Additionally, consideration of a new lab facility and storage
space integrated into the facility should be made in order to accommodate the additional testing required for process
control of a secondary treatment plant.
9.3 Design Codes and Standards

The secondary treatment facility would need to have an occupied gallery level. Ontario Building Code (OBC)
Article 3.2.2 determines the most restrictive major occupancy. Due to the nature of the new facility, it is assumed
that the classification would be F-2 Medium Hazard Industrial.
According to Article 3.2.2.71 of the OBC, this building does not require sprinklers and may be of combustible or
non-combustible construction. Floor assemblies would be fire separations, but require a 45-minute rating only if
made of combustible construction materials. Supporting structures would be rated at 45-minutes, or be non-
combustible. It is intended that the structure be of non-combustible construction and, therefore, it will conform to
the requirements of Article 3.2.2.71.
Exits would be designed to conform to Ontario Building Code (OBC) Article 3.4.2. The distance between exits
would not exceed the figures as outlined in this section of the OBC.
WB092006004OTT 366480
10. Structural Design

10.1 General
The structures (i.e. tanks, tunnels, etc.) will be constructed on cast-in-place reinforced concrete foundation walls
with strip footings or flat slabs. For the preferred site layout, due to existing grades, the structures would likely have
to be over excavated and placed on engineered fill. For structures bearing on engineered fill post construction total
and differential settlements should be less than 25 and 15 mm respectively. For structures bearing on bedrock
differential settlements of the structures should not be a concern.
The high river water level is assumed to be at elevation 75.0 metres above sea level (masl) based on discussions with
the City’s soils consultant. The founding elevation of all of the structures would be significantly higher and,
therefore, rock anchors, to resist buoyancy would not be necessary. During construction, seepage of some surface or
subsurface water is anticipated but should be manageable with perimeter ditches. A permanent drainage system
should be installed to alleviate any hydrostatic head against the structures. The below grade structures adjacent to
any dry areas (e.g. galleries, tunnels, basements) will be waterproofed on the exterior. Chemical waterproofing will
be applied to the tank walls and slabs adjacent to the dry areas.
10.2 Design Codes and Standards

The design of all structural aspects of the new and upgraded works will be governed by the applicable requirements
of the latest edition of the following codes and standards:
Ontario Building Code
CSA Standard A23.3-04
All liquid retaining structures will be based on the applicable requirements of the ACI 350-01 “Code
Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures,” as applied to the Canadian design standards
and codes
CSA Standard S16-01, Limit States Design of Steel Structures
CSA Standard S157-05, Strength Design in Aluminum
CSA Standard S304.1-04, Design of Masonry Structures.
10.3 Materials
Concrete will conform to CAN/CSA A23.1 “Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction.” Typical
compressive strength for tank structures would be 32 MPa with a maximum water/cementing material ration of 0.45,
nominal maximum size of coarse aggregate of 20 mm and an air content of 5 to 8%. Steel reinforcement should
conform to CSA G30.18, Grade 400 deformed billet steel.
Structural steel will conform to CAN/CSA G40.21 “Structural Quality Steels.” Hot rolled structural sections and
plates will be to Grade 350W. Stainless steel sections and plates will generally conform to Type 316 and aluminum
sections and plates will conform to Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6.
WB092006004OTT 366480
11. Electrical Design

11.1 Existing Power Distribution
The utility supplies the Brockville WPCC site from a pole line (4800 Volts Delta) that runs parallel to the site access
lane on the east side of the site. This pole line is connected to the Hydro One pole line located alongside Highway
#2. The site pole line terminates in three pole mounted 167 kVA fluid filled transformers. These transformers are
believed to be owned by Hydro One Networks. Three 167 kVA transformers provide a capacity of 500 kVA or 600
Amps at 600 Volts. The transformer pole is located approximately 110 m north of the dewatering building. The
transformer secondary conductors (600/347 V Wye) are contained in a buried concrete encased duct bank which
leads into the dewatering facility and connects to MCC No. 5 on the second floor. MCC No. 5 contains a utility
metering section that connects to a kilowatt-hour meter located on the exterior east wall of the building at ground
level.
MCC No. 5 distributes the site 600 Volt power to the loads in the Dewatering Facility and MCCs located in the
other buildings. These other building MCCs are MCC No. E2 in the West Service Building, MCC No. 1 in the
Digester Facility, MCC No. 3 in the East Service Building, and MCC No. 6 in the Screen and Grit Facility.
During a site inspection (Dec. 14 2007), MCC No. 5 was observed to have a load of 200 Amps. In discussions with
site personnel, 200 to 300 Amp loads are considered to be average.
MCC No. E2 located in the West Service Building contains a standby power transfer switch. This transfer switch
receives its standby power from a 75 kVA diesel power generator located in the same room as the MCC. Normal or
utility power is supplied from MCC No. 5. MCC No. E2 supplies standby power MCC No. E1 in the Digester
Facility, MCC No. E3 in the East Service Building and MCC No. E6 in the Screen and Grit Facility.
Anticipated loads for the new secondary treatment plant are between 450 and 550 kW and will require finalization
during preliminary/detailed design.
11.2 New Power Distribution

The existing overhead lines and pole mounted transformers will likely interfere with the construction of the new
facility as the overhead line runs across the area that may be utilized as a construction staging area. Therefore it is
proposed that consideration be given to temporarily relocating the existing overhead line to accommodate the
construction of the new facility. This temporary line and the existing pole mounted transformers would be removed
once the new utility service is ready.
The existing power service to the Brockville WPCC is insufficient to support the anticipated increased load,
therefore it is proposed that a new overhead line be constructed to supply a pad mounted transformer located
adjacent to the new secondary treatment facility. The transformer is expected to be approximately 1,000 kVA in
capacity. To allow for additional future capacity it is suggested that the transformer be equipped with fans to utilize
the additional capacity provided by a transformer with a forced cooling rating.
In addition to the new overhead line to feed the on-site transformer from Highway #2, Hydro One will be required to
upgrade the off-site service from approximately 2 kilometres away, where the nearest available high capacity line is
located. The City of Brockville has initiated discussions with Hydro One to begin their design of this off-site
facility, so that this design is available for the detailed design phase of this project in future.
The transformer secondary output (600/347 Volts) will connect to the new facility electrical room through a buried
duct bank. A distribution switchboard with utility metering section will distribute the power to both the new and
existing facility. It is anticipated that a 600 Amp feeder will supply the existing MCC No. 5. A second 700 Amp
feeder will supply the new facility main motor control center through an automatic transfer switch. As it is supplied
through an automatic transfer switch, the new facility motor control center will continue to supply all loads under
generator power when utility power is unavailable.
The new service entrance switchboard, transfer switch and motor control center should be installed in a dedicated
electrical room. It is anticipated that future changes to the Ontario Electrical Safety Code (Arc Flash and Associated
Personal Protective Equipment Requirements) will be in place by the time this plant is being designed and
constructed.
WB092006004OTT 366480
11.2.1 Distribution
Typical distribution conductors will be armored Teck cable in tray. Conductors in hazardous areas will be conductor
in rigid conduit with appropriate seals as it enters these areas.
Distribution panels and step down transformers will be located in the main electrical room or non hazardous areas to
avoid hazardous environment conflicts.
11.2.2 Lighting
Lighting will be manually switched fluorescent. Fixtures will be sealed as required for the hazardous or damp areas.
11.2.3 Emergency Supply

It is proposed that a new 750 kVA 600 kW 600/347 Volt diesel generator in a self contained, sound attenuating walk
in enclosure is installed as the source of emergency power. Consideration of diesel versus natural gas for standby
power must be made with respect to the City’s risk tolerance for fuel supply. The generator would be located on a
concrete pad adjacent to the new facility. Due to the close proximity of residential areas a critical or hospital grade
silencer is suggested to attenuate the exhaust noise. A minimum of 24 hours of fuel storage would be provided
within the enclosure. A generator of this size will support secondary treatment and the existing primary treatment
plant. The existing generator is near the end of its useful life, therefore, it is recommended it be removed. One of the
VE proposals included a suggestion to optimize the potential standby power requirements, which is recommended
for further consideration during preliminary design, and could offer savings in the sizing of the generator (i.e. a
smaller generator if making use of the existing generator). Also, a review of standby power requirements with
respect to items such as waste gas utilization for off-setting of boiler replacement in conjunction with cogeneration
could be reviewed during preliminary design, in the context of this project as a whole.
Typical ultraviolet disinfection equipment operates at 480/277 Volts. Therefore appropriate step down transformers
and distribution should be provided to support the recommended UV equipment. Supplied from the new MCC, the
disinfection equipment will be supported with emergency power in the event of a utility power failure.
11.2.4 Power Factor Correction

The largest percentage of the new load is motors. To prevent a poor power factor (Motor power factor is typically
0.8 lagging and utilities require a 0.94 lagging power factor to avoid penalty.) and the resulting cost penalty on the
utility charges, a system of power factor correction using a staged, transient free capacitor bank located in the
electrical room of the new facility is proposed. A staged bank is preferred to a group of fixed capacitors sized to
each individual motor because the staged bank may be tuned to minimize the impact of power system harmonics.
WB092006004OTT 366480
12. Building Mechanical Design

12.1 Heating
Existing/new boilers for the facility would provide hydronic heating to new areas (i.e. secondary treatment and
disinfection occupied spaces) and consist of a combination of the following:
Convectors, cabinet heaters, baseboards for administration/non-process areas;
Unit heaters in the process areas;
Glycol heat exchanger serving make-up air and air handlers requiring freeze protection.
Hot water supply and return piping would be distributed through existing and new tunnels to the necessary locations.
Glycol heat exchangers would be located locally at facilities requiring the use of a freeze resistant media for make-
up air requirements.
12.2 Ventilation
Ventilation would be provided to meet expected occupational loads and be designed to meet the latest Ontario
Building Code (OBC) and American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (ASHRAE) 62
standards for administration/non-process areas. Process areas/pipe galleries would be ventilated in accordance with
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 820 Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and
Collection Facilities. Ventilation of process areas not having defined minimum code ventilation rates but potentially
posing health risks to personal would be considered as required (ex. enclosed/covered tanks).
12.3 Odour Control

Generally odour control is provided at the headworks and dewatering areas of a wastewater treatment plant, and no
change to the existing facilities have been identified as part of the secondary upgrade. New odour control should be
considered for the proposed WAS thickening, digested sludge storage and centrate equalization facility. There are
also alternative possible operations procedures that could be used in place of the requirement for odour control such
as flushing of the WAS thickening pipes following operations and/or use of a sodium hypochlorite system for
periodic cleaning of the lines.
12.4 Plumbing
Separated storm and sanitary drainage would be provided for new facilities per OBC standards. The existing treated
effluent water system would be used to meet process requirements (wash down, etc.) for new areas and tanks.
Potable water would be distributed to new facilities as required and be designed per OBC standards.
12.5 Life Safety

A sprinkler/standpipe system would not be required for new areas. Fire extinguishers would be provided and
distributed throughout facilities per NFPA 10 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers. Requirements for
emergency eyewash/showers and tempered water systems per American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z358.1
Standard for Emergency Eyewash and Shower Equipment would be evaluated and provided as necessary for areas
where operators will be expected to handle chemicals.
WB092006004OTT 366480
13. Implementation Schedule

A project implementation schedule is outlined in Table 13-1. This schedule is for planning purposes, and provides a
typical schedule for implementation of a project of this scale.
There are a number of opportunities that could be used to compress this schedule, including short duration on
consultant selection for design and tender document completion, consideration of shortening preliminary design by
limiting items such as existing plant reviews (carry these out prior to design), limiting pre-selection packages and a
possible advance site preparation construction contract. These types of schedule acceleration items should be
addressed early during the preliminary design stage.
Contractor pre-qualification was recommended as an outcome of the VE workshop, and this should be planned to
occur concurrently with the tender document preparation in order to limit any impact with respect to lengthening of
the project schedule.
TABLE 13-1
Typical Project Implementation Schedule for Planning Purposes
Duration
Activity Projected Date (months)
Select Design Consultant and Project Kick-Off Mid February to Mid April, 2008 2
Preliminary Design End of October 2008 6
Detailed Design/Tender Document End of June 2009 8
Tender and Award of Construction Contract End of September 2009 3
Complete Construction End of September 2011 24
Commissioning End of January 2012 4
WB092006004OTT 366480
14. Project Costs

The project cost budget from the EA was estimated at $28M to $36M (2004 dollars). This included a $15-20M
allowance for secondary treatment upgrade, and $10-12M for existing plant upgrades. An objective of this
conceptual design is to establish the project cost estimate based on the scope defined in the Request for Proposal and
this report. This cost does not included engineering and project management costs.
A summary cost table in Appendix F provides a breakdown of each option evaluated in this study and each
combination of technologies, i.e. CAS with UV or chlor/dechlor, and BAF with UV or chlor/dechlor.
At this conceptual design level, the estimated total project cost to implement secondary treatment for the
recommended option of CAS with UV disinfection is $43M.
Detailed cost breakdowns are included in Appendix F, and are subject to the design basis and assumptions
previously outlined.
14.1 Cost Estimating Basis and Assumptions

The estimated costs for capital and operations and maintenance for this project have been completed based on the
conceptual design and assumptions as stated in previous sections. At the conceptual level of design, the cost estimate
is considered to be between a Class D and Class C estimate, per the definitions provided by Public Works Canada,
outlined as follows.
Class A Estimate
This is a detailed estimate based on quantity take-off from final drawings and specifications. It is used to evaluate
tenders or as a basis of cost control during day-labour construction.
Class B Estimate
This estimate is prepared after site investigations and studies have been completed and the major systems defined. It
is based on project brief and preliminary design. It is used for obtaining approvals, budgetary control and design cost
control.
Class C Estimate
This estimate, which is prepared with limited site information, is based on probable conditions affecting the project.
It represents the summation of all identifiable project component costs. It is used for program planning, to establish
a more specific definition of client needs and to obtain approval-in-principle.
Class D Estimate
This is a preliminary estimate, which due to little or no site information indicates the approximate magnitude of cost
of the proposed project, based on the client’s broad requirements. This overall cost estimate may be derived from
lump sum or unit costs as identified in the construction cost manual for a similar project. It may be used to obtain
approval-in-principle and for discussion purposes.
Appendix F contains the cost estimating work sheets completed for this study. The total cost estimate was prepared
using the following bases and assumptions:
Costs are 2008 dollars
Building estimates are approximated from their size and type of construction using per square meter costs
Equipment estimates are based on historical data or vender quotations from recently tendered wastewater
projects with allowances for installation based on percentage of the equipment cost
Detailed equipment, electrical, heating and ventilating, process piping, etc. layouts will be completed during
detailed design, therefore, costing for these items has been done at a conceptual level, with an allowance for
conservative quantities with unit prices based on recent tender information from similar projects
Contractors Markup: 15% (10% overhead, 5%) based on recent projects in construction in the Ottawa area
WB092006004OTT 366480
Conceptual Design Contingency Allowance: 30%

Concrete: unit prices based on current market conditions however metals markets are very volatile
Excavation: $100/m3 for rock blasting, based on recent tender pricing
Project management costs at $700,000 per the City of Brockville Council briefing
Engineering Costs (Design and Construction): representative costs of 20% of project cost included
The following items are excluded from the cost estimates:
City of Brockville internal costs
GST
Removal of hazardous waste (it is assumed there will be no hazardous material encountered during excavation)
Additional costs for various approaches for accelerating construction, if desired (i.e. multiple construction
contracts, design/build, pre-selection, etc.)
14.2 Impact of Escalation and Market Conditions

14.2.1 Escalation to Time of Construction
An escalation rate of 3% per year is assumed based on CH2M HILL’s internal tracking of construction costs by our
cost estimating professionals. An escalation allowance of 6.8% has been used (or 27 months @ 3% per year =
0.25% per month). This assumes that from January 2008 (time of writing of this report) to the mid-point of
construction is April 2010, which is approximately 27 months. This is subject to change based on the final project
schedule.
14.2.2 Construction Market

In the current construction market, contractors are generally busy which, in turn, reduces the competitiveness which
could increase tendered amounts. Additionally, the prices of some commodities (such a steel and copper) are very
volatile. It is difficult to predict the impact of these market conditions. An allowance of 2% has been included as a
construction market allowance.
14.2.3 Contingency Allowance

A mark-up of thirty percent for contingency has been included. This contingency allowance is based on an expected
four levels of cost estimates being prepared. The total contingency mark-up will decrease as the design develops and
more information is available as shown in Table 14-1. At the conceptual design phase, the level of design is not
totally defined; therefore the 30% allowance was carried as a design development contingency. This contingency is
not intended to be used for additions to the scope of work, such as additional upgrades to existing works or increases
in plant capacity, etc. but is to account for unforeseen items that cannot be accounted for at this conceptual stage of
design.
TABLE 14-1
Contingency Allowance Carried in Cost Estimate
Total Contingency Allowance Carried
Cost Estimate Level in Cost Estimate
Conceptual Design 30%
Pre-Design 20%
Detailed Design 15%
Pre-Tender 10%
WB092006004OTT 366480
15. Conclusions and Recommendations

The following are the conclusions and recommendations of this study:
Implementation of the secondary treatment upgrade project at the Brockville WPCC move forward to
preliminary design, detailed design and construction using conventional activated sludge and UV disinfection.
The recommended site layout is provided in Figure 4, following this page. The recommended process flow
diagram and typical equipment layouts used as a conceptual basis for this study are also included following this
page.
The cost of secondary treatment and disinfection upgrades, including modifications to the existing plant to
incorporate secondary treatment is estimated as a Class C/D cost estimate at $43M.
Remaining funds are expected to be available for use to rehabilitate or upgrade priority items to improve
operations at the existing facility therefore increasing operational efficiency and/or water quality. These upgrade
items should be included in the design project and as provisional items in the construction tender pending the
results of the tender bids, allowing the City to select items as appropriate based on the tender prices for the
secondary treatment and disinfection project. The amount of available funds will be further determined as more
detailed cost estimates for the secondary treatment and disinfection portion of the project are refined during
preliminary and detailed design.
The following items are recommended for further review in the design and construction project, resulting from
Value Engineering proposals:
Investigate potential to incorporate new coagulation chemical facilities within the new secondary
treatment plant construction – Value Engineering Proposal #4.
Inclusion of suggested program delivery items in the project management approach - Value
Engineering Proposal #14.
The following items should be reviewed during preliminary design:
Flows to the existing plant through a flow metering study to ensure a firm design basis.
Standby power, cogeneration, and associated waste gas systems including possible boiler replacements
in order to address these upgrades and costs as a whole.
Condition assessment of the existing primary clarifiers.
Condition assessment of the existing digesters.
Inclusion of laboratory, maintenance and storage space within the new secondary treatment facilities.
Interior inspection of the outfall to confirm good condition.
Review of the geotechnical report should be completed during preliminary design to confirm
assumptions regarding foundation requirements and excavation requirements for tankage.
Design of the off-site electrical feed upgrade by Hydro One. This should be initiated as soon as
possible by the City to ensure this design is complete during preliminary design as a basis for the
electrical site layout requirements.
WB092006004OTT 366480
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Example Process Flow Diagram
Outfall to
River
Disinfection
Screens Grit
Tanks Aeration Tanks Final
Clarifiers
Return/Waste
Primary Return
Sludge Pumps
Clarifiers Blowers
Waste Sludge
Thickened Waste Sludge Holding
Tank/Thickening
Digested Sludge
Sludge Holding Tank
Pump
Dewatering
Truck to
Centrate Pumping Reuse
LEGEND Station
Wastewater
Anaerobic
Sludge
Digesters
Air
Return to Primary
Treatment
Truck to Land
Application

Finalconceptdesignreport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Finalconceptdesignreport

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finalconceptdesignreport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

February 2008

Conceptual Design Report

7.3 Construction Considerations..................................................................................................32

1.2 Project Objectives

1.3 Project Scope

 New emergency standby power, new site electrical feed upgrade to 44 kV

2 Digester Operations - Must have complete mixing of each Digester. 1

5 Screening - Problems with Screening Equipment and retained water, odours 2

8 Primary Tanks - Mechanical Gears and Shaft Condition Assessment 3

9 Controls - ALL PLC's require upgrade to RSLogics (current programming 2

11 Primary Tanks – Investigate adjustment of effluent weir to achieve better 3

1.4 Value Engineering

Site Optimization Greg Ashley

Secondary Process Brian Hein

Biosolids Hugh Tracy

Existing Facilities Clare Humphrey

Project Delivery Conal Cosgrove

1 Cake Storage (Winter) Biosolids Not to be carried forward

2 Do not add 3rd digester Biosolids Carry forward

Include this item with Proposal

5 Add Intermediate pumping Site Optimization Not to be carried forward

Minimum requirements for Standby Carry forward to preliminary

Utilize excess primary treatment

8 Primary Sludge Degritting Existing Facilities Not to be carried forward

9 Move site closer to river Site Optimization Not to be carried forward

Optimize scum removal process from

Optimize scum removal process to

Not being carried forward - UV is

13 Circular clarifiers Site Optimization Not to be carried forward

2.2 Treatment Processes

2.3 Flow Rates

2.4 Certificate of Approval

Existing Plant Capacity (1) 21,800 54,500

2004 (2) 19,700 39,900 21,475

2006 (Jan to Sept) (3) 19,500 43,900

2004-2006 Average 20,000 48,400

Future Period (2029) (1) 20,050 50,125 24,295

Design Period (2027 – 20 years) 21,800 54,500

2001-2003 (Average) 1 112 143 3 12.4

2005 3 90 118 2.5 Note 4

2006 (Jan to Sept) 3 86 127 2.8 Note 4

2004-2006 Average 89 129 2.7 Note 4

54.5 MLD - Peak

3.2 Septage Receiving

Residential 280 homes

3.3 Effluent Criteria

Total Phosphorus 1.0 0.8

Total Ammonia (as N) – Winter (December to 4 3

Total Ammonia (as N) – Summer (June to 2 1.5

E.coli 200 / 100 mL 100 / 100 mL

3.4 Receiving Water

4. Secondary Treatment and Disinfection Technology Review

4.2 Conceptual Design

4.3 Secondary Treatment

4.3.1 Design Basis

Screening − Existing process sizing sufficient for design flows

Grit Removal − Existing process sizing sufficient for design flows

− HRT = 7.2 hours @ Average Daily Flow

New emergency standby power, new site electrical feed upgrade to 44 kV