town of saugeen shores water and sanitary sewer servicing ... · pdf filetown of saugeen...

TOWN OF SAUGEEN SHORES

WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICING

MASTER PLAN – 2014 REPORT

Z:\14007-Saugeen-Shores-Water_and_Sewer_Master_Plan_Update\WP\Master Plan\14007-15Apr01-Master Plan Report.docx




April 1, 2015 B. M. ROSS AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Engineers and Planners

62 North Street

Goderich, ON N7A 2T4

Phone: 519-524-2641

Fax: 519-524-4403

www.bmross.net

File No. 14007

http://www.bmross.net/

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose of the Master Plan ............................................................................................1

1.2 Description of Facilities ..................................................................................................1

1.3 Growth and Development ..............................................................................................2

1.4 History of Master Planning in Saugeen Shores ............................................................2

1.5 2014 Terms of Reference ................................................................................................3

2.0 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .............................................................3

2.1 Master Plan Process ........................................................................................................3

2.2 Consultation.....................................................................................................................4

2.2.1 General ..................................................................................................................4

2.2.2 Initial Public Notice ..............................................................................................4

2.2.3 Agency Notification ..............................................................................................4

2.2.4 Public Meeting ......................................................................................................7

2.2.5 First Nations and Métis Communities ..................................................................8

2.2.6 Media Release .......................................................................................................9

3.0 SERVICED POPULATION AND GROWTH ...........................................................10

3.1 Sources of Information .................................................................................................10

3.2 Population ......................................................................................................................10

3.2.1 Existing Population .............................................................................................10

3.3 Existing Customer Base ................................................................................................12

3.3.1 Customers and EHU’s.........................................................................................12

3.3.2 Service Area Split ...............................................................................................12

3.3.3 Customers without Sewer Service ......................................................................15

3.4 Equivalent Household Units ........................................................................................15

3.5 Potential Development Areas .......................................................................................17

4.0 SAUGEEN SHORES DRINKING WATER SYSTEM.............................................21

4.1 Description .....................................................................................................................21

4.2 Issues Identified in 2009 ...............................................................................................24

4.3 Population Growth and Water Demands ...................................................................26

4.3.1 Population Growth ..............................................................................................26

4.3.2 Existing Demands ...............................................................................................26

4.3.3 Future Water Demands .......................................................................................27

4.4 WTP Capacity Assessment...........................................................................................28

4.5 Water Storage Capacity Assessment ...........................................................................29

4.5.1 Background .........................................................................................................29

4.5.2 Existing Facilities................................................................................................29

4.5.3 Operational Description ......................................................................................30

4.5.4 Conclusions re Storage – 2 Zones .......................................................................33

4.5.5 Operation as a Single Pressure Zone ..................................................................34

Table of Contents Cont’d

4.6 Water Distribution System Modelling ........................................................................36

4.6.1 Background .........................................................................................................36

4.6.2 Model Details ......................................................................................................36

4.6.3 Analyses Run ......................................................................................................38

4.6.4 Qualifications on Results ....................................................................................38

4.6.5 Results of Analysis .............................................................................................38

4.6.6 Findings for Existing Arrangement ....................................................................39

4.6.7 Findings for 20 year Scenario .............................................................................40

4.6.8 Conclusions re One or Two Zones......................................................................40

4.6.9 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................46

4.7 Conclusions for Saugeen Shores Drinking Water System ........................................49

4.7.1 Supply and Storage .............................................................................................49

4.7.2 Watermains .........................................................................................................49

4.8 Suggested Projects and Capital Costs .........................................................................50

5.0 PORT ELGIN AREA SEWAGE SYSTEM ...............................................................51

5.1 Description .....................................................................................................................51


5.3 Population Growth and Sewage Flows .......................................................................53

5.3.1 Population Growth .............................................................................................53

5.3.2 Existing Sewage Flows .......................................................................................53

5.3.3 Future Sewage Flows ..........................................................................................55

5.4 Sewer Collection System...............................................................................................56

5.4.1 Existing Issues ....................................................................................................56

5.4.2 Extensions for New Development ......................................................................56

5.4.3 Service to Developed, But Unserviced Areas .....................................................58

5.4.4 Service to the South Part of Port Elgin ...............................................................58

5.4.5 Service Outside Settlement Area ........................................................................60

5.5 Sewage Pumping Station and Forcemains ..................................................................60

5.5.1 General ................................................................................................................60

5.5.2 Harbour Street SPS .............................................................................................60

5.5.3 10th Concession SPS ..........................................................................................61

5.5.4 Combined Pumping Capacity .............................................................................61

5.6 Wastewater Treatment Plant .......................................................................................62

5.6.1 Description ..........................................................................................................62

5.6.2 Capacity Review .................................................................................................63

5.7 Odour Issues ..................................................................................................................66

5.8 Summary and Conclusions for Port Elgin Sewage ....................................................67

5.8.1 Summary .............................................................................................................67

5.8.2 Risks ....................................................................................................................68


6.0 SOUTHAMPTON AREA SEWAGE SYSTEM ........................................................70

6.1 Description .....................................................................................................................70



6.3 Population Growth and Sewage Flows .......................................................................72

6.3.1 Population Growth ..............................................................................................72

6.3.2 Existing Sewage Flows .......................................................................................72

6.3.3 Future Sewage Flows ..........................................................................................74

6.4 Sewer Collection System...............................................................................................75

6.4.1 Existing Issues ....................................................................................................75

6.4.2 Extensions for New Development ......................................................................75

6.4.3 Extensions for Existing Developments ...............................................................75

6.4.4 Service Outside Settlement Area ........................................................................77

6.5 Sewage Pumping Stations and Forcemains ................................................................77

6.5.1 General ................................................................................................................77

6.5.2 SPS No. 1 ............................................................................................................77

6.5.3 SPS No. 3 ............................................................................................................79

6.5.4 SPS No. 5 ............................................................................................................79

6.6 Wastewater Treatment Plant .......................................................................................79

6.6.1 Description ..........................................................................................................79

6.6.2 Capacity Review .................................................................................................80

6.7 Summary and Conclusions for Southampton Sewage ...............................................84

6.7.1 Summary .............................................................................................................84

6.7.2 Risks ....................................................................................................................85


References .......................................................................................................................87

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Forecasted Urban Population 2014 to 2034 ...........................................................11

Figure 3.2A Existing Sewage Service Area ...............................................................................13

Figure 3.2B Existing Water Service Area ..................................................................................14

Figure 3.3A Sewage EHU's to 2034 ..........................................................................................16

Figure 3.3B Water EHU's to 2034 .............................................................................................16

Figure 3.4A Port Elgin Area Non-Sewered and Future Development Areas ............................19

Figure 3.4B Southampton Area Non-Sewered and Future Development Areas .......................20

Figure 4.1A Saugeen Shores Water System – South Part ..........................................................22

Figure 4.1B Saugeen Shores Water System – North Part ..........................................................23

Figure 4.2 Existing Conditions Schematic Diagram ...............................................................25

Figure 4.3 Forecasted Average and Maximum Day Water Demand ......................................28

Figure 4.4 Water Supply Capacity vs. Demand 2014 to 2034 ................................................29

Figure 4.5 Water Storage Required vs Available in a Single Zone System ............................36

Figure 4.6A Two Zone, Average Day Demand .........................................................................42

Figure 4.6B One Zone, Average Day Demand ..........................................................................43

Figure 4.6C Two Zone, Maximum Day Demand ......................................................................44

Figure 4.6D One Zone, Maximum Day Demand .......................................................................45

Figure 4.7A Saugeen Shores Water System Extensions – South Part .......................................47

Figure 4.7B Saugeen Shores Water System Extensions – North Part .......................................48

Figure 5.1 Existing Port Elgin Sewage System .......................................................................52


Figure 5.2 Port Elgin and Area Sewer System Extensions .....................................................59

Figure 5.3A Port Elgin WWTP – Average Flow vs Capacity ...................................................63

Figure 5.3B Port Elgin WWTP – Maximum Day vs Capacity ..................................................64

Figure 5.3C Port Elgin WWTP – Peak Flow vs Capacity .........................................................64

Figure 5.4 Biosolids Storage – Required vs Available ...........................................................66

Figure 6.1 Existing Southampton Sewage System ..................................................................71

Figure 6.2 Southampton and Area Sewer System Extensions ................................................78

Figure 6.3A Southampton WWTP – Average Flow vs Capacity ..............................................81

Figure 6.3B Southampton WWTP – Maximum Day vs Capacity .............................................81

Figure 6.3C Southampton WWTP – Peak Flow vs Capacity ....................................................81

Figure 6.4 Southampton WWTP Biosolids Storage – Required vs Available ........................83

TABLES

Table 2.1 Summary of Review Agency Comments .................................................................5

Table 2.2 Summary of First Nation and Métis Community Comments ..................................9

Table 3.1 Non-Serviced and Potential Development Areas ..................................................17

Table 4.1 Existing Southampton WTP Capacity ...................................................................21

Table 4.2 Raw and Treated Water Demands (2011 – 2013) ..................................................26

Table 4.3 Existing Average and Maximum Day Water Demand ..........................................27

Table 4.4 Forecasted Average and Maximum Day Water Demand ......................................28

Table 4.5 Summary of Treated Water Storage Facilities .......................................................30

Table 4.6 Peak Demand vs High-lift Capacity ......................................................................31

Table 4.7 Fire Flows and Durations .......................................................................................32

Table 4.8 Theoretical Storage Requirement at 2034..............................................................33

Table 4.9 Summary of WaterCAD® Analysis .......................................................................39

Table 4.10 Saugeen Shores Water System – Capital Projects .................................................50

Table 5.1 Port Elgin WWTP Sewage Flows ..........................................................................53

Table 5.2 Existing Average and Maximum Day Sewage Flows (Port Elgin) .......................54

Table 5.3 Summary of Information for Future Sewers in Port Elgin Service Area ...............57

Table 5.4 Port Elgin WWTP Unit Process Capacities ...........................................................62

Table 5.5 Biosolids Production Data .....................................................................................65

Table 6.1 Southampton WWTP Sewage Flows .....................................................................72

Table 6.2 Existing Average and Maximum Day Sewage Flows (Southampton) ..................73

Table 6.3 Summary of Information for Future Sewers in Southampton Service Area ..........76

Table 6.4 Southampton WWTP Unit Process Capacities ......................................................79

Table 6.5 Sludge Production Data .........................................................................................82

Table 6.6 Southampton Sewage System Projects ..................................................................86

APPENDICES

Appendix A Public and Agency Consultation

Appendix B Calculations for Master Plan

Appendix C Odour Management Plan

Appendix D WaterCAD Model Information

ES-1



MASTER PLAN – 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Town of Saugeen Shores initiated a Master Plan update process in March 2014 to identify its

water and wastewater infrastructure needs for the period 2014 to 2034. A water and wastewater

Master Plan had previously been prepared in March of 2000 and updated in June of 2009. Since

then, a number of significant capital projects have been completed and several growth related

studies undertaken.

The purpose of this Master Plan is to re-examine the Town’s water and wastewater infrastructure

needs in light of new planning policies and growth projections.

ES2.0 KEY FINDINGS

ES2.1 Growth and Development

Based on information obtained from the 2011 Development Charges background studies, it was

determined that the current (2014) urban population of Saugeen Shores is approximately 16,600.

It is expected that this value will increase to slightly more than 21,400 by 2034.

Analysis of existing development and customer information established that currently there are:

2.38 persons per dwelling

13.6 persons per hectare

68% of the sewer and water customers are in the Port Elgin service area

32% of the sewer and water customers are in the Southampton service area

716 more water customers than sewer customers

Sewage and water servicing have historically been expressed in terms of Equivalent Household

Units (EHU’s). Table 2.1 summarizes the current and projected EHU’s. It is important to note

that currently there are properties within each urban water service area that do not have sanitary

sewer service. The expectation is that those properties will be serviced within the next 20 years.

All reserve capacity calculations have been completed using that assumption.

Table 2.1

Summary of Existing and Projected EHU’s

Municipal

Service

Existing

EHU’s

Projected

Growth

Existing

Unserviced

2034 EHU’s

Water 7,753 2,286 0 10,039

Sanitary 6,756 2,334 716 9,806

ES-2

Consistent with current experience, for every new residential EHU, the projected growth

included 0.14 of non-residential EHU’s for sanitary sewer service and a 0.17 EHU’s for water

service. Also consistent with current experience, all growth was assumed to be divided 62% /

38% between the Port Elgin and Southampton service areas respectively.

ES2.2 Saugeen Shores Drinking Water System

(a) Treatment Capacity

The Southampton Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has a rated capacity of 18,000 m3/d.

Membranes are in place for approximately 12,500 m3/d. Water is supplied to two separate

pressure zones that are connected but isolated by closed valves.

The existing maximum day water demand is estimated to be 10,325 m3/d. This value is

projected to increase to 13,365 m3/d (75% of WTP capacity) by 2034. Figure 2.1 indicates that

additional membranes will be required by approximately 2027 to 2028. At 2014 prices the cost

of the additional membranes to increase capacity from 12,500 to 13,3656 m3/d will be in the

order of $90,000. It is probable that membranes will be added in stages.

Figure 2.1

Water Supply vs Demand 2014 to 2034

(b) Water Storage

There is currently 9,740 m3 of effective treated water storage including 3,300 m

3 in the

Southampton Standpipe, the majority of which is only available by pumping. A detailed review

of storage requirements during both peak and significant fire demand situations established the

following:

Re Zone 1 – Southampton Area

Peak flow equalization will be achieved by the operation of the Zone 1 high-lift pumps

discharging from the WTP clear well. The WTP will tend to keep the clear well replenished

with slow drawdown.

ES-3

During a significant fire condition as defined by MOE Guidelines, the standpipe will draw

down to unacceptable water levels and necessitate either operating the booster pump at the

base of the standpipe, or opening valves between Zones 1 and 2.

The standpipe drawdown issue exists in the present scenario and risks will increase

somewhat with growth and development.

Re Zone 2 – Port Elgin Area

Peak flow equalization will be achieved by the booster pumps at the ground reservoir

responding to lowering water levels in the adjacent standpipe. It is not expected that

standpipe levels will decline once the booster pumps are called to operate.

Peak flow operation of the booster pumps will result in depletion of the ground reservoir

volume from 4,500 m3 to approximately 2,070 m

3.

A significant fire event, as defined by MOE Guidelines, can be managed with the existing

storage facilities. The existing facilities would be near the limit of their capabilities by 2034,

based on growth and development predictions.

Investigations were also completed to assess the opportunity for the existing two pressure zones

to be operated as a single zone using the Port Elgin Standpipe as the control point. It was

determined that, in terms of supply and storage, there is essentially no difference between a two

zone and a single pressure zone system. Supply and storage are adequate to at least 2034.

(c) Conclusions re One or Two Zones

A WaterCAD®

model of the distribution system was developed and used to compare the current

two zone system to operation as a single pressure zone. The model contained 473 pipes and 237

junctions. Findings were:

The system has considerable redundancy in terms of storage facilities. The fact that the WTP

is in one service area and most of the storage is in the other is an asset.

Disruption of the 500 mm trunk supply to the Port Elgin area is a risk, but it is mitigated by

the fact that there is sufficient storage in the Port Elgin area. Repair materials should be on

hand should a breakdown occur.

Development of the east parts of Southampton should ideally occur from south to north,

taking advantage of the trunk supply along the Highway 21 corridor. Without connection to

this source, or much better looping, fire flows in the east part will always be restricted.

The Southampton Standpipe is a critical component of the fire protection capacity in what is

now Zone 1. Although not critical at this time, moving to full automation of this facility

should be considered.

Operation as a single zone will require modification of the pumping system at the

Southampton Standpipe to permit regular turnover of the contents.

ES-4

Under normal (i.e. non-fire) demand conditions an additional 10 % of the system will be

subjected to pressures greater than recommended by MOE Guidelines. This presents some

risk and could potentially result in more breaks and/or leakage. The risk is off-set somewhat

by the knowledge that:

A number of trials as a single zone have been undertaken with few problems reported.

Some areas of Zone 2 already have > 700 kPa pressures, apparently without problems.

In our opinion it is probable that some properties will require the installation of pressure

reducing valves (PRV’s) on the individual services.

There will be some long-term benefit to the single zone arrangement for peak flow

conditions. More of the system will be operating at optimum pressures than currently.

The greatest benefit to conversion to a single zone is in terms of fire flows, particularly to

areas north of the River. With a single pressure zone only a single junction is indicating a

fire flow < 40 L/s at 140 kPa residual pressure.

In summary, conversion to a single zone will increase fire protection capability, but also

increase the risk of breaks and leakage. A decision to proceed should be based on

consideration of:

The age and material of watermain that will be subject to higher pressures.

The opinion of the fire department as to the benefit of increased flows.

The cost of the necessary control and pump changes and PRV installation.

(d) Summary for Water Supply

The following summarizes findings with respect to the Saugeen Shores drinking water system:

At projected growth, additional membranes will be required to be installed by approximately

2028. No other changes at the WTP are required. The cost to add the required additional

membranes is approximately $90,000 (2014$).

Assuming the pumping capability at the Southampton Standpipe is retained, there is adequate

water storage to 2034.

Additional watermains will be required to accommodate growth but no changes to existing

are required.

Operation as a single pressure zone is feasible and will improve pressures and flows in some

areas during peak and fire flow conditions. Consideration must be given to the following:

An additional 10% of the system will be subjected to pressures greater than 700 kPa

Additional automation and possible pumping system modifications will be required.

ES-5

ES2.3 Port Elgin Area Sewage System

(a) Wastewater Flows

The Port Elgin sanitary sewage system currently serves an equivalent population of

approximately 10,000 distributed over 4,189 EHU’s. The following unit flow values have been

established.

Average Day per EHU = 0.89 m3/d

Maximum Day per EHU = 2.44 m3/d

Peak Rate per EHU = 3.93 m3/d

(b) Collection System

Potential wastewater flows from both future development and existing but unserviced

development were established and the capacity of receiving sewers was assessed. Only one

capacity issue was identified. At build-out of the area within the Settlement Boundary in the

south part of the Port Elgin Service Area, the existing Harbour Street sewer, downstream of

Izzard Avenue, is projected to be at 93% of its capacity. Given that there are many variables and

assumptions regarding what the future flows will be, we recommend monitoring the flows in this

sewer at 5 year intervals or as dictated by development.

Currently there are six Sewage Pumping Stations (SPS’s); four of which serve smaller local areas

of the collection system. Two of the SPS’s pump directly to the WWTP.

The total firm pumping capacity is as follows:

Harbour St. SPS = 178 L/s

10th

Concession SPS = 231 L/s

Total Firm Capacity = 409 L/s

= 35,338 m3/d

This value is approximately 210% of estimated existing peak flows and 145% of the projected

2034 peak flow of 24,000 m3/d. Pumping capacity is adequate.

(c) Port Elgin WWTP

The current ECA for the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) establishes a rating of 6,455 m3/d

for annual average flow. Current average flow is approximately 3,735 m3/d (58% of capacity).

It is projected that annual average flows will increase to 5,426 m3/d by 2034 (84% of capacity).

The rate of increase is presented on Figure 2.2.

ES-6

Figure 2.2

Port Elgin WWTP – Average Flow vs Capacity

In 2013 all compliance and objective criteria for the WWTP were met. There had been total

suspended solids issues in 2011 and 2012 but optimization efforts appear to be successful.

Although the WWTP ECA rating is based on Annual Average Day Flow, some unit processes

have design and operational criteria based on maximum day and peak flows. Figures 2.3A and

2.3 B show the relationship between projected flows and the capacity of the clarifiers and UV

disinfection system. The existing outfall sewer capacity is already being exceeded and it is

currently the subject of a Class EA.

Figure 2.3A

Port Elgin WWTP – Maximum Day vs Capacity

Figure 2.3B

Port Elgin WWTP – Peak Flow vs Capacity

ES-7

Analyses established that the aerobic digester is already theoretically undersized based on

criteria in the MOE Guidelines. Any performance issues associated with this are off-set by the

fact that digestion continues to occur in the sludge holding tank.

Currently biosolids are land disposed on a six month cycle. MOE Guidelines recommend eight

months of on-site storage. If disposal can continue on a half year cycle the existing facilities are

adequate.

We recommend that the capacity of the biosolids and digestion facilities be monitored on a

5 year frequency and that any changes be considered in conjunction with the Southampton

WWTP.

(d) Summary for Port Elgin Area Sewage System

The investigation of the Port Elgin Area Sewage System has established the following:

The reserve capacity of the Harbour Street sewer downstream of Izzard Street should be

assessed at 5 year intervals or as developments dictates.

No increase in capacity is required of the Harbour Street or 10th

Concession SPS’s within the

study period.

The WWTP will not require a major expansion or re-rating within the 20 year study period.

The UV disinfection system at the WWTP will require expansion or re-rating by 2018.

Probable costs for expansion are in the order of $200,000.

The reserve capacity of the biosolids digestion and holding facilities should be reviewed at

least every 5 years.

ES2.4 Southampton Area Sewage System

(a) Wastewater Flows

The Southampton sanitary sewage system currently serves an equivalent population of

approximately 6,100 distributed over 2,567 EHU’s. The following unit flow values have been

established.

Average Day per EHU = 0.67 m3/d


Peak Rate per EHU = 3.26 m3/d

(b) Collection System

The locations of potential new development, as well as existing but unserviced development

(e.g. Miramichi Road), were determined and sewage flows estimated. The capacities of existing

probable outlet sewers were assessed and in most cases no issues were identified. It is

anticipated that a new SPS will be required to service future development in the east part of the

service area and it is recommended that it discharge directly to the WWTP.

ES-8

(c) Southampton WWTP

The current ECA for the Southampton WWTP establishes ratings of 3,042 m3/d and 6,084 m

3/d

for annual average day and peak rate respectively. Current average flow is 1,730 m3/d (57% of

capacity) and peak flow is estimated to be 7,620 m3/d (125% of capacity).

Although the ECA does not have criteria for maximum day flows, maximum flows relate to

solids loading capacity for the WWTP clarifiers. Calculations indicate, for current process

operations, the maximum day capacity of the clarifiers is approximately 6,110 m3/d. Current

maximum day flows are 91% of this value. Actual observations during high flows indicate the

clarifier capacity could be greater than 7,500 m3/d.

It is predicted that average annual flows will increase to 2,485 m3/d (81% of capacity) by 2034.

Figures 2.4A to 2.4C show the relationship between unit process capacities and projected flows.

Figure 2.4A

Southampton WWTP – Average Flow vs Capacity

Figure 2.4B

Southampton WWTP – Maximum Day vs Capacity

ES-9

Figure 2.4C

Southampton WWTP – Peak Flow vs Capacity

Similar to the Port Elgin WWTP. Analyses established that the aerobic digester is already

theoretically undersized based on design criteria in the MOE Guidelines. Any performance

impacts associated with this are off-set by the fact that digestion continues to occur in the sludge

holding tank.

Currently biosolids are land disposed on approximately a six to seven month cycle. MOE

Guidelines recommend eight months of on-site storage. If disposal can continue on a half year

cycle, the existing facilities are adequate.

(d) Summary for the Southampton Area Sewage System

The investigation of the Saugeen Area Sewage System has established the following:

Some development in the east part of the settlement area will require a new SPS. This

SPS should discharge directly to the WWTP.

It will be necessary to increase the speed of the pumps at SPS No. 1. Timing for the

increase is subject to monitoring.

Investigations (e.g. CCTV) of the collection system should continue and where possible,

efforts be made to reduce Infiltration and Inflow.

Work should proceed to re-rate or expand the UV disinfection system at the WWTP.

During peak flow conditions, continue to monitor the performance of the clarifiers at the

WWTP. If performance begins to deteriorate an increase in clarifier capacity will be

required.

Expansion of the WWTP headworks will be required by approximately 2031.

The reserve capacity of the biosolids digestion and storage facilities should be reviewed

every 5 years.

ES-10

ES3.0 POTENTIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS

ES3.1 Saugeen Shores Drinking Water System

The Saugeen Shores Drinking Water System has adequate treatment capacity until

approximately 2028 and adequate storage capacity until 2034. Prior to 2028 it will be necessary

to add more membranes to the existing filter.

Table 3.1 provides a summary of potential water system related capital projects.

Table 3.1

Saugeen Shores Water System Capital Costs

Project Purpose Description Probable Cost

(2014$)

To increase filtration

capacity

Provide additional membranes to increase

capacity from 12,500 m3/d to 13,365 m

3/d

$90,000

To allow a single

pressure zone

Provide pressure reducing valves on individual

services in lowest areas of Zone 1

$20,000 to

$50,000

Modify SCADA and related controls $80,000 to

$100,000

Add duty pump to Southampton Standpipe for

circulation (including building) $250,000

Add a 2nd

booster pump $125,0002

To increase security at

Southampton Standpipe Add a standby generator $100,000

2

Notes:

1. All costs based on 2014$.

2. Probable cost assumes building is expanded as part of creating a single zone. If not, add $100,000.

When considering the above projects, it is important to note that several trials operating as a

single pressure zone have been completed with success. The projects above would increase

security, automate the operation of the booster system and reduce energy costs related to

turnover of the contents. They are not necessary for a single zone operations, but will be more

relevant and valuable as the population and water demands increase over time.

As discussed previously, any consideration of operation the water distribution as a single zone

must be made with due consideration:

The consequences of increased pressure with respect to pipe age and material.

The benefits of better fire protection.

The costs of implementation as identified above.

ES3.2 Port Elgin Sewage System

The UV system at the Port Elgin WWTP will need to be re-rated or expanded by approximately

2018. The probable cost of a UV system expansion will be between $200,000 and $300,000.

ES-11

ES3.3 Southampton Sewage System

Investigations have identified a number of potential capital projects and actions related to the

Southampton sewage system. These are summarized in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2

Southampton Sewage System Capital Projects

Project or Activity Suggested

Timing

Probable Cost

(2014$)

Investigations (e.g. CCTV, flow metering) to reduce

infiltration and inflow to the sewers Ongoing effort

Annual Budget

Item

Increase speed of pumps at SPS No. 1 Subject to

monitoring No cost

Expand or re-rate UV disinfection and Outfall (30 m±) 2015 $200,000

Clarifier expansion (subject to monitoring) 1

Subject to

monitoring $925,000

Headworks modifications or expansion 2 2031

$100,000 to

$300,000 Notes:

1. The theoretical capacity and the ECA rated capacity of the clarifiers will be reduced in 2017-2018. There

needs to be an on-going monitoring program.

2. Modern Headworks often incorporate mechanical screening and other features. Costs can vary substantially.

4.0 RISKS

4.1 Saugeen Shores Water System

The Southampton WTP has considerable excess rated capacity and adequate redundant systems.

Treated water storage is in multiple structures and there is adequate volume to meet projected

growth to 2034.

The Southampton Standpipe is integral to fire protection in the Southampton area and a

necessary component of the overall storage system. However, its value is dependent on a

manually initiated booster pumping system at the base of the structure. The installation of

standby power and redundant pumping facilities at this location would reduce system risks.

Disruption of the 500 mm trunk supply to the Port Elgin area is a risk, but it is mitigated by the

fact that there is sufficient storage in the Port Elgin area. Repair materials should be on hand

should a breakdown occur.

4.2 Port Elgin Sewage System

Other than the capacity of the UV disinfection system and the existing outfall sewer, there are no

apparent capacity issues within the study period for the primary treatment components at the Port

Elgin WWTP. Certain assumptions have been made regarding rates of development and where

development will occur (e.g. 62% Port Elgin are and 38% Southampton area). There is sufficient

reserve capacity that there will be ample opportunity to respond to growth that exceeds what is

projected in this Master Plan.

ES-12

Peak wastewater flows are not currently measured and recorded. Values used in this Master Plan

are estimates based on available data. It is important to note that the real peak flow to the

WWTP is the sum of the discharges from the two large SPS’s, and there is the capability of

exceeding the estimated value. Based on historical information, exceedances would be very

infrequent. As the service area expands risk will increase, but it is currently low.

It has long been the practice of the MOE to change effluent quality requirements (i.e. make them

more stringent) when a capacity increase is requested. It is possible that the MOE could lower

the allowable concentrations for both BOD5 and TSS and add criteria for nitrogen parameters

(e.g. ammonia).

The first opportunity for the MOE to consider changes will be during the Class EA process for

the UV system and outfall currently underway.

We recommend that biosolids quantities and storage requirements be monitored on at least a five

year frequency. Should treatment or storage problems occur, then a formal biosolids

management study, including consideration of the Southampton WWTP, should be undertaken.

Biosolids storage capacity is less than the eight months recommended by the MOE Guidelines.

Should the Guideline values be enforced through regulation or other means, it will be necessary

to determine how biosolids should be managed going forward.

A review of the impact of future development and the potential connection of areas currently

without sanitary servicing (e.g. Gobels Grove) has established that the sections of existing

sanitary sewer on Harbour Street between Izzard Avenue and the Harbour Street SPS will be

within 7% of theoretical capacity at full development. Because flows could change, we

recommend re-assessment on a 5 year frequency or as the rate of development dictates.

4.3 Southampton Sewage System

Investigations have identified potential capacity issues at the Southampton WWTP within the

next two to four years. The issues relate to maximum day and peak flows and involve several

unit processes in the WWTP (i.e. clarification and disinfection). Also a short section of the

existing outfall may need to be upgraded.

It has also been determined that loadings to the aerobic digester exceed design guideline values.

As long as treated biosolids can be land disposed at current frequencies, there is adequate storage

capacity for at least 10 years.

Other than the capacity of the UV disinfection system, a section of the existing outfall sewer, and

the final clarifiers at maximum day flow; there are no apparent potential capacity issues until

near the end of the study period for the primary treatment components at the Southampton

WWTP. Certain assumptions have been made regarding rates of development and where


reserve capacity, in terms of average annual plant rating, that there will be ample opportunity to

respond to growth that exceeds what is projected in this Master Plan.

ES-13



WWTP is the sum of the discharges from several SPS’s, and there is the possibility of exceeding

the estimated value. Based on historical information, exceedances would be very infrequent. As

the service area expands, risk increases, but it is currently low.




(e.g. ammonia).

The first opportunity for the MOE to consider changes would be if an application is made for an

ECA amendment to address the peak flow rating or disinfection/outfall. Given that no increase

in effluent loading is required, we believe a strong argument can be made for retaining the

existing effluent objectives, or alternatively negotiating criteria that are consistent with existing

performance.

Master Plan Introduction




1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Master Plan

The Municipal Engineer’s Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Ref 1)

describes Master Plans as:

“...long range plans which integrate infrastructure requirements for existing and

future land use with environmental assessment planning principles. These plans

examine an infrastructure system(s) or group of related projects in order to outline a

frame work for planning for subsequent projects and/or developments. At a

minimum, Master Plans address Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process.”

The Town of Saugeen Shores initiated a Master Plan update process in March 2014 to identify its

water and wastewater infrastructure needs for the period 2014 to 2034. A water and wastewater

Master Plan (Ref 2) had been prepared in March of 2000 and updated in June of 2009 (Ref 3).

Since then, a number of significant capital projects have been completed and several growth

related studies undertaken.

The purpose of this Master Plan is to re-examine the Town’s water and wastewater infrastructure

needs in light of new planning policies and growth projections.

1.2 Description of Facilities

Saugeen Shores is an amalgamation of the former Towns of Port Elgin and Southampton and the

Township of Saugeen. Municipal water and wastewater servicing extends throughout most of

the urban areas as defined by the former Towns and some adjacent areas of the former

Township.

A detailed description of the facilities, including their capacities, is included in the following

sections of this report.

Water supply is from the Southampton Water Treatment Plant (WTP). Treated water storage

facilities are located at the plant and high-lift pumps discharge to two pressure zones. Zone 1 is

generally the area of Southampton west of Grenville Street and Zone 2 is the very east part of

Southampton and all of Port Elgin. There are treated water storage facilities located within each

zone.

B. M. ROSS AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED


62 North Street, Goderich, ON N7A 2T4

p. (519) 524-2641 f. (519) 524-4403

www.bmross.net

File No. 14007

Town Of Saugeen Shores Page 2

Water And Sanitary Sewer Servicing

Master Plan – 2014 Report

Separate wastewater treatment plants (WWTP’s) serve each urban area. Both discharge treated

effluent to the Saugeen River. Wastewater is discharged to each plant from several sewage

pumping stations (SPS).

The most significant projects completed since the 2009 Master Plan include the 10th

Concession

SPS which serves the Port Elgin area. Part of the project included diverting existing sewage,

originally directed to the Harbour Street SPS to the new 10th

Concession SPS. The facility went

into operation in January 2010. In Southampton sanitary sewage servicing was extended to areas

north of the Saugeen River in 2011. At the Port Elgin WWTP a new headworks was constructed

in 2010.

1.3 Growth and Development

A detailed calculation of projected growth and development was completed as part of the 2011

Development Charges Study (Ref 4). Potential development areas including the scale and type

of development were also set out in a new Official Plan in 2012 (Ref 5).

One of the goals of the Master Plan is to identify servicing requirements for future development

areas as well as areas that currently do not have full servicing. A total of 27 areas were identified

including 19, generally within the Port Elgin area, and 8 within the Southampton area.

1.4 History of Master Planning in Saugeen Shores

B. M. Ross and Associates Limited (BMROSS) were retained in 1999 to complete a water and

sewage servicing Master Plan for Saugeen Shores (Ref 2). At that time Port Elgin and

Southampton were served from separate WTP’s, one in each community. The introduction of O.

Reg. 459/00 in 2000 resulted in inspections of all water treatment facilities in Ontario including

both facilities in Saugeen Shores. The inspections determined, at the time, neither plant was

capable of meeting recently adopted treatment standards for drinking water.

Expansion of the water distribution system into areas adjacent to the urban areas, the application

of residential water metering, and the consequences of O. Reg. 459/00 resulted in the Master

Plan of 2000 being updated by BMROSS in July of 2002.

As a result of the 2002 master planning process, the Town initiated a Class Environmental

Assessment in the same year to investigate water treatment and supply alternatives. The chosen

alternative was to have a single WTP servicing both water distribution systems. In 2004 – 2006

the Southampton WTP was significantly upgraded and provision made, by means of a large

diameter watermain, to have it serve the Port Elgin distribution system. This allowed the Port

Elgin WTP to be removed from service in 2007.

In 2006 (Ref 6) BMROSS was retained to once again update the 2000 Master Plan. The focus of

investigations were high sewage flows at the Harbour Street SPS and the need to accommodate

projected new development in the north part of Port Elgin. Alternatives were considered and

recommendations made to construct a new SPS at the 10th

Concession. This station went into

operation in January 2010.




In 2009, Genivar Consultants LP was retained to prepare a new Water and Sanitary Sewer

Servicing Master Plan. The 2009 Master Plan (Ref 3) once again looked at water and sewer

servicing for all of the urban areas of the Town. It included additional growth analysis and the

delineation of prospective areas of new development. The Plan, which followed the

requirements of the Municipal Engineer’s Association Class Environmental Assessment process

of Master Plans was completed in June 2009.

1.5 2014 Terms of Reference

The 2014 Master Plan update was initiated to enable the Municipality to identify opportunities

and be proactive in terms of servicing strategies for water and wastewater systems and to address

existing and future infrastructure issues. The timeframe for the study was established as 2014 to

2034. Specifically this update was to:

Use revised population growth and planning estimates contained in the Local Official Plan

and Development Charges Studies for the municipality for both urban and rural areas within

the 20-year planning horizon.

Complete a technical review of previously identified needs.

Identify the infrastructure improvements and capital costs to accommodate new growth

within the build-out of the urban settlement boundary in the Official Plan and improve

system reliability for the upcoming 20-year planning period.

To provide a business case for the need, timing and cost of servicing and infrastructure

updates.

To review water quality, effluent quality and wastewater biosolids management to meet

current and future regulatory requirements.

Engage and facilitate Stakeholder discussions including residents and the business

community in the completion of this study by completing Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Class

Environmental Assessment process.

2.0 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

2.1 Master Plan Process

Master Plan studies are carried out in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental

Assessment (Class EA) document, as prepared by the Municipal Engineers Association, dated

October 2000 (as amended in 2007 and 2011) (Ref 1). This study addresses the first two phases

in the Class EA planning and design process. Under this approach, the Master Plan is done at a

broad level of assessment, and becomes the basis for future investigations for specific projects

identified within it.




The tasks associated with Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA planning process generally include the

following:

Identification of the problem or opportunity

Collection, review and analysis of data

Communication with relevant government agencies, municipalities, the public and interested

parties about the problem and possible solutions

Identification and evaluation of alternative solutions prior to determining the recommended

solution

Identification of potential impacts and mitigation measures

Organization and participation in public consultation

Definition of the preferred strategy in a Master Plan document.

2.2 Consultation

2.2.1 General

Public consultation is an integral component of the Class EA process. Public consultation allows

for an exchange of information which assists the proponent in making informed decisions during

the evaluation of alternative solutions. During the Master Plan process, consultation was

undertaken to obtain input from the general public, stakeholders, and review agencies that might

have an interest in the project.

The components of the public consultation program employed during the Master Plan study are

summarized in this section of the Master Plan document and included in Appendix A. Comments

received, and related correspondence, are also discussed and included in the consultation

Appendix.

2.2.2 Initial Public Notice

Contents: General study description, summary of study process

Issued: May 5, 2014

Placed In: Shoreline Beacon

Circulated To: Agencies, First Nation and Métis communities

No comments were received from members of the public as a result of the Notice.

2.2.3 Agency Notification

Input was solicited from government review agencies by way of direct mail correspondence.

Agencies that might have an interest in the project were initially sent a letter entailing the nature

of the project.

Appendix A contains a copy of the information circulated to the review agencies and a list of the

agencies requested to comment on the project. Responses from the agencies are also provided. A

summary of the comments received are provided below in Table 2.1.




Table 2.1

Summary of Review Agency Comments

Review Agency Comments Actions Taken

Ministry of Environment

June 6, 2014

(Email)

- Received letter and Notice of Commencement

- Asked for copy of the 2009 Master Plan

- Emailed a copy of the 2009

Master Plan

- Copy of Draft Master Plan

emailed Feb. 2/15

Ministry of Transportation

July 3, 2014

(Email)

- May have an interest in the project, should it impact the Highway 21

corridor

- Wishes to be circulated updates and materials as the Class EA

proceeds to review potential impacts to Highway 21

- Noted


emailed Feb. 2/15

Ministry of Tourism,

Culture and Sport

July 14, 2014

(Email)

- Asked to advise MTCS whether an archaeological assessment and/or

a heritage impact assessment will be completed for the EA process

- Developing a preliminary inventory of known and potential cultural

heritage resources within the study area can identify specific interests

that may play a significant role in the evaluation of alternatives for

project-driven EAs

- Wish to be circulated project information and materials throughout

the EA process

- Noted


emailed Feb. 2/15

Saugeen Valley

Conservation

July 14, 2014

- Interest to receive additional information and reports as they are made

available

- Noted

Ministry of Natural

Resources and Forestry

January 26, 2014

(Email)

- Request project status and update - Emailed copy of Draft

Master Plan Feb. 2/15




Review Agency Comments Actions Taken

Ministry of Tourism,

Culture and Sport

February 6, 2015

(Email)

- Suggest a preliminary inventory of cultural heritage resources be

completed

- Much of existing infrastructure installed prior to requirements for

archeological assessments

- Given archeological potential, suggest that upgrades, expansions and

extensions and extensions of water and wastewater systems may have

impacts

- Recommend incorporating contingencies in Master Plan for potential

archeological impacts

- Noted

- Revised Master Plan to

include text that indicates the

high potential for

archeological resources and

potential impacts. Text also

added to indicate any future

works (expansion,

extensions, upgrades) will

require archeological and

cultural heritage screening

(see Sections 4.725, 5.9 and

6.8)

Ministry of Transportation

February 18, 2015

(Email)

- No concerns with overall findings of draft report

- MTO will require that as part of Class EA all viable alternatives

(easements, road allowances, trail corridors) be considered for the

placement of utilities outside of the Highway 21 property limits. The

MTO, at this time, does not support or endorse the placement of

utilities in the Highway 21 corridor.

- Suggest this is mentioned in summary and conclusions

- Noted

- Revised Master Plan to

include MTO comments on

utilities in Highway 21

corridor (see Sections 4.72,

5.9 and 6.8




2.2.4 Public Meeting

A Public Information Meeting was held on November 10, 2014 at the Town of Saugeen Shores

Municipal Office in Port Elgin. A notice announcing the meeting was placed in the October 29th

and November 5th

editions of the Shoreline Beacon. The notice was also circulated to 6 review

agencies and to First Nations and Métis communities.

The public meeting included an open house session, which began at 5 PM. During this time,

attendees had the opportunity to speak with the study team and read project display boards.

Following the open house session, there was a formal presentation of the review of population

projections, identified issues, and potential solutions. Following the presentation, there was a

question and answer session.

The general purpose of the meeting was to present audience members with the following

information:

History of Master Planning in Saugeen Shores

Rationale for a new Master Plan

Class EA process

Growth projections

Review of the water supply system

Review of the sewage servicing for the Port Elgin area

Review of the sewage servicing for the Southampton area

An overview of the next steps in the Class EA process.

There were approximately 15 members of the public in attendance. No comment sheets were

completed or returned following the meeting. A copy of the public meeting notice and

presentation materials are included in Appendix A. The following questions were raised at the

public meeting:

Q. If the UV system is replaced, what would the cost be?

Study team response: Approximately $200,000.

Q. How will areas currently without servicing (existing development) be prioritized to

receive services? How are developed areas defined?

Study team response: Developed areas are defined in the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw. The

intent of the Master Plan is not to identify priorities for servicing; however the Master Plan study

did examine the impacts of servicing all existing developed areas and assumed that the areas

currently not serviced will be serviced in the future.

Q. Is the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Port Elgin sewage outfall looking at an

outfall closer to Southampton?

Town response: The EA is looking at an outfall to Mill Creek.




Q. Is the timing of the average peak directly related to the influx of people in the summer?

Study team response: For the water system, the maximum day use does occur in the summer.

Maximum sewage flows occur in the spring, which is related to the spring melt.

Q. Where did the population data come from?

Study team response: The population data came from the Census, however as the census does not

include seasonal residents, customer data from the water and sanitary sewer services was also

examined.

Q. Assuming the 10-year population forecast is correct, there doesn’t appear to be anything

alarming over the next 5-10 years.

Study team response: There are no major capital works required; however, there will be

maintenance work required.

Q. Any future expansions will be related mostly to growth, so could these be funded through

development charges?

Study team response: Yes. Costs associated to growth could be collected through development

charges.

2.2.5 First Nations and Métis Communities

Consultation was undertaken in conjunction with the Master Plan process with First Nation and

Métis communities identified as potentially having an interest in the study. At the outset of the

project, information regarding the Master Plan Update was forwarded to five First Nation and

Métis communities known from previous projects undertaken within Bruce County to potentially

have an interest in the project. Copies of the draft Master Plan were provided to the Historical

Saugeen Metis and Saugeen Ojibway Nation to comment on. A summary of the feedback from

the communities that responded is included in Table 2.2 below. Copies of all correspondence

received or sent is included in Appendix A.




Table 2.2

Summary of First Nation and Métis Community Comments

First Nation or Métis

Community

Comments Actions Taken

Historic Saugeen Métis

June 17, 2014

(Letter)

- Would like additional

information on the project

- Noted

- Materials from the Public Meeting

were forwarded by email on

December 2, 2014

- Draft Master Plan sent Jan. 26/15

Saugeen Ojibway Nation

May 29, 2014

(Telephone Call)

- Would like more information on

the Master Plan

- Asked to be kept informed and

provided updated contact

information.

- Explained that the study is an update

to the 2009 Master Plan and the

purpose is to incorporate recent

changes to the Official Plan,

financial plans, Development

Charges Bylaw, and recent growth.

The Master Plan will outline projects

moving forward, and further studies

will be required to implement any

projects identified.

- Materials from the Public Meeting

were forwarded by email on

December 2, 2014

- Draft Master Plan sent Jan. 26/15

Historic Saugeen Metis

March 25, 2015

(Email)

- No technical comments - noted

2.2.6 Media Release

A media release to further inform the general public and stakeholders of the Master Plan Update

was issued on July 29, 2014. The media release provided a brief description of the purpose of

the study. It also indicated that a public meeting would be held to give residents an opportunity

to participate in the process. A copy is included in Appendix A. The media release was sent to

the following local media agencies:

Shoreline Beacon

Saugeen Times

Bayshore Broadcasting

Blackburn News

Shoreline Today (MyFM)




3.0 SERVICED POPULATION AND GROWTH

3.1 Sources of Information

The terms of reference for the Master Plan update indicate the Town’s Official Plan (2012)

(Ref 5) and Development Charges Amendment Study (2011) (Ref 4) would serve as the sources

for projected growth and development information.

To establish the existing user base, reference was also made to an analysis used to establish the

2014 water and wastewater rates.

3.2 Population

3.2.1 Existing Population

In the Development Charges background investigations, Hemson Consulting Ltd. reviewed

historical growth and development and predicted population growth from 2011 to 2031.

They indicated the 2010 Census Population was 12,660 based on 5,321 “occupied” dwellings.

The population per dwelling (ppd) was therefore 2.38. In addition to the occupied dwellings,

there were 1,857 un-occupied dwellings. Applying the same density value to these, results in a

total 2010 population for all of Saugeen Shores of 17,078 [(5,321 + 1,857) x 2.38].

To translate the above population from 2010 to 2014 and from all of Saugeen Shores to just the

urban area, we undertook a two step process:

1. The number of residential units constructed between 2010 and 2014 was determined and

the additional population estimated by multiplying by 2.38 ppd.

2. The number of urban households was assumed to be equal to the number of residential

water customers.

The analysis proceeded as follows:

2010 Estimated Total Population = 17,078

Growth 2010-2013 = 299 units x 2.38 = 712

2014 Total Population = 17,790 (start of year)

Total No. of dwellings - 2010 = 7,178 (from census)

Growth 2010-2013 = 299

2014 Total Dwellings = 7,477 (start of year)

Less 2014 Residential Water Customers = 6,970

2014 Rural Dwellings = 507

2014 Urban Population = 6,970 x 2.38 = 16,589




The 2012 urban population was estimated to have occupied 1221 hectares (ha) based on a map of

the Town’s “built-up” area contained within the Official Plan. The land occupied by the

Chippewa Golf and Country Club in Southampton and the lands generally east of Mill Creek in

Port Elgin were not included in this estimate. The existing population density of Saugeen Shores

is estimated to be 13.6 persons/ha (16,589 ÷ 1,221).

Hemson predicted that the population of Saugeen Shores would grow by 5,100 persons from

2011 to 2031. They also predicted that between 2011 and 2020 there would be an average 110

new dwellings per year and after 2020 there would be 90 per year. Based on the assumptions

that each dwelling would add 2.38 persons and all new dwellings would be built in the urban

areas, we have estimated the 2034 urban population to be:

2014 Urban Population = 16,589

Growth 2014-2020 = 7 x 110 x 2.38 = 1,833

Growth 2021-2034 = 14 x 90 x 2.38 = 2,999

2034 Estimated Urban Population = 21,421

Figure 3.1 presents the above graphically.

Figure 3.1

Forecasted Urban Population 2014 to 2034




3.3 Existing Customer Base

3.3.1 Customers and EHU’s

Information developed for the 2014 water and wastewater rate analysis indicated the following:

For Water Supply:

Total No. of Customers = 6,836

Total No. of Equivalent Household Units (EHU) = 7,753

No. of Residential 1Units Inside Boundary = 6,970

EHU’s for Residential = 6,633

EHU’s for Non-Residential 2 = 1,120

Therefore, for every customer there will be (7,753 ÷6,836) 1.13 EHU’s and for every residential

unit there will be (1,120 ÷ 6,633) 0.17 EHU’s of non-residential.

For Wastewater:

Total No. of Customers = 6,117

Total No. of EHU’s = 6,756

No. of Residential Units = 6,266

EHU’s for Residential = 5,941

EHU’s for Non-Residential = 815

Therefore, for every sanitary customer there will be (6,756 ÷6,117) 1.10 EHU’s and for every

residential unit there will be (815 ÷ 5,941) 0.14 EHU’s of non-residential.

3.3.2 Service Area Split

The Municipality also provided information indicating that the existing customer split between

the two urban communities, for both water and wastewater, is approximately:

62 % Port Elgin service area

38% Southampton service area

Figures 3.2A and 3.2B shows maps of the existing sewage and water service areas.

1 Residential defined as “Residential Fixed Water Charge Customers plus Apartment Units”

2 Includes cottage groups

Lake Huron

197.6 ha

639.9 ha

369.5 ha

BRUCE ROAD

NORTHRANKIN STREET

EL

GIN

ST

RE

ET

IZZARD ROAD

GR

EE

N S

TR

EE

T

SO

UT

H S

TR

EE

T

ARLINGTON STREET

GODERICH STREET

HURON STREET SOUTHSAUGEEN

BE

AC

H

ROAD

HIG

H S

TR

EE

T

BA

Y S

TR

EE

T

LAKE STREET

BRICKER STREET

PE

EL

ST

RE

ET

MCNABB STREET

CLA

RE

ND

ON

ST

RE

ET

ECKFORD AVENUE

BRUCE STREET

CARLISLE STREETRAY STREET

SP

EN

CE

ST

RE

ET

ALBERT STREET SOUTH

HIGHLAND STREET

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 1

0

HIGHWAY 21

SHORE ROAD

SHIPLEY AVENUE

CA

ME

RO

N D

RIV

E

BRUCE ROAD 33

SIDEROAD 13 & 14

RAIL

WAY

STR

EET

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 1

4

B LIN

E

FENTON DRIVE

TYENDINAGA DRIVE

DOLL SIDEROAD

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 4

0

LOU

ISA

ST

RE

ET

HARRY THEDE SIDEROAD

LINKS SIDEROAD

CO

NCESSION

10 WEST ARRAN

CONC

ESSION 8 W

EST ARRAN

THE RIVER ROAD

BA

RTL

EY

SIDEROAD

BRUCE ROAD 17

GU

STA

VU

S S

TR

EE

T

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 6

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 2

5

WELLINGTON STREET

MIL

L S

TR

EE

T

CE

ME

TER

YR

OAD

EASTWOOD DRIVE

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 4

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 3

AL

ICE

ST

RE

ET

SIDEROAD 18 & 19

BL

IND

LIN

E

Sewage Service Area

0 500 1,000250 Metres

´

PROJECT No.14007Town of Saugeen Shores DATE

SEPT. 2014

SCALE1 : 52,000

Water and Sanitary Sewer Servicing Master Plan UpdateFIGURE No.

3.2AExisting Sewage Service Area

Lake Huron

BRUCE ROAD

NORTH RANKIN STREET

IZZARD ROADGR

EEN

STRE

ET

SOUT

H ST

REET

ARLINGTON STREET

GODERICH STREET

HURON STREET SOUTHSAUGEEN

BEACH ROAD

HIGH

STRE

ET

BAY S

TREE

T

LAKE STREET

BRICKER STREET

PEEL

STR

EET

MCNABB STREET

CLAR

ENDO

N ST

REET

ECKFORD AVENUE

BRUCE STREET

CARLISLE STREETRAY STREET

SPEN

CE S

TREE

T

ALBERT STREET SOUTH

JOS EPHS TR E ET

CONC

ESSI

ON 10

HIGHWAY 21

TURNER STREET

SHORE ROAD

GREY STREET SOUTHSHIPLEY AVENUE CAME

RON

DRIV

E

BRUCE ROAD 33

SIDEROAD 13 & 14

RAILWAY STREET

CONC

ESSI

ON 14

B LINE

FENTON DRIVE

TYENDINAGA DRIVE

DOLL SIDEROAD

BRUC

E ROA

D 40

LOUI

SA S

TREE

T

HARRY THEDE SIDEROAD

LINKS SIDEROAD

CONCESSION 10 WEST ARRAN

CONCESSION 8 WEST ARRAN

THE RIVER ROAD

BART

LEY SIDEROAD

BRUCE ROAD 17

GUST

AVUS

STRE

ET

CONC

ESSI

ON 6

BRUC

E ROA

D 25

WELLINGTON STREET

MILL

STR

EET

CEMETERY ROAD

EASTWOOD DRIVE

CONC

ESSI

ON 4

ALIC

E ST

REET

BRUC

E ROA

D 3

SIDEROAD 18 & 19

BLIN

D LIN

E

0 500 1,000250 Metres

´


SEPT. 2014SCALE

1 : 52,000Water and Sanitary Sewer Servicing Master Plan Update FIGURE No.

3.2BExisting Water Service AreaWater Service Area




3.3.3 Customers without Sewer Service

There are, as of summer 2014, approximately 716 properties with water service, but no sewer

service. These are divided among the two service areas approximately as follows:

Port Elgin service area = 459

Southampton service area = 257

3.4 Equivalent Household Units

As noted in the previous section, users of the water and wastewater systems are described as

EHU’s. To estimate the growth in EHU’s between 2014 and 2034 we once again used the

Hemson Development Charges Study information.

Hemson forecasted that by 2031 the number of private dwellings would increase by:

1,100 units between 2011 and 2020 (110 units per year)

990 units between 2021 and 2031 (90 units per year)

The breakdown of the 2090 units was projected to be:

1,568 singles and semis (75%)

376 other multiples (18%)

146 apartments (7%)

The above forecasts were for the period 2011 to 2031. Assuming growth beyond 2031 (i.e. to

2034) continues at 90 units per year then the forecasted growth between 2014 and 2034 will be

2030 units divided as:

1,568 singles and semis (75%)

(Rounded to 82 units per year from 2014 to 2020 and 68 units per year from 2021 to 2034)

376 other multiples (18%)

(Rounded to 20 units per year from 2014 to 2020 and 16 units per year from 2021 to

2034)

146 apartments (7%)

(Rounded to 8 units per year from 2014 to 2020 and 6 units per year from 2021 to 2034)

Using the same relationships as set out for the 2014 water and wastewater rate calculation (i.e.

apartments = 0.5 EHU) the total additional residential EHU’s to 2034 will be 1959.

In addition to the above the residential development, Hemson forecasted that an additional

55,000 m2 of commercial building space would be created over the 20 year period. It is assumed

that all new residential and commercial development will occur in urban areas.




Based on the existing relationship between residential and non-residential EHU’s the additional

non-residential EHU’s to 2034 will be:

For Water = 327

For Wastewater = 269

Figures 3.3A and 3.3B show the number of predicted EHU’s in each community for the Master

Plan study period. For purposes of the Master Plan, we have assumed the 716 existing properties

currently without sanitary service will be connected during the study period and that each

represents one EHU.

Figure 3.3A

Sewage EHU's to 2034

Figure 3.3B

Water EHU's to 2034




3.5 Potential Development Areas

Table 3.1 lists the areas and their individual approximate development areas.

Table 3.1

Non-Serviced and Potential Development Areas

Area No. Description or Name

Approx.

Area

(ha)

Port Elgin

Area

1 Gobles Grove (Developed – no sewer service) 51.5

2 Saugeen Shore Road (Developed – no sewer service) 29.3

3 South of Bruce 25 49.2

4 North of Bruce 25 65.3

5 Trillium Drive 19.1

6 Geddes Street 2.6

7 Conc. 10 north and east of Highway 21 12.8

8 Northfield Drive 7.8

9 Reid’s Heritage Homes 111.0

10 Vastag 29.3

11 Concession 6, north and south 9.9

12 Bricker Street 9.7

13 Airport Area 14.4

14 Piper’s Glen 90.3

15 North of Concession 10 17.7

16 Highway 21, south-west side (Developed – no sewer service) 17.4

17 Highway 21, south-east side 43.4

18 Northshore Road (Developed – no sewer service) 12.0

19 Highway 21, south of Bruce 25 13.6

Sub-Total Port Elgin Area 606.3

Southampton

Area

A Miramichi Road Area (Developed – no sewer service) 54.7

B Peel Street / McNab Street 15.3

C Island Street / Bay Street 2.5

D South side of Peel Street 28.3

E North side of Peel Street 38.4

F South of Louise Street 11.7

G South side of Grenville /High Streets 9.2

H North side of Grenville /High Streets 12.7

Sub-Total Southampton Area 172.8

Total Non-Serviced and Potential Development Areas 779.1




Figures 3.4A and 3.4B identify three types of areas that could impact on future servicing

requirements. These are:

Areas currently developed but without sanitary service (i.e. non-serviced)

Areas of potential development within the 2012 OP settlement area boundary

Areas of potential development outside the settlement area but inside the study area

In total, there are more than 600 ha of land within the Settlement Area boundary available for

development. At the current development density of 13.6 persons per ha, an additional

population of approximately 8,000 people could be accommodated. Given that projected

growth between 2014 and 2034 is less than 5,000 (see Section 3.2.1), it appears that growth

can be readily accommodated with currently planned areas.

MA

TC

H LIN

E 1

Lake Huron

MATCH LINE 2

GODERICH STREET

BRICKER STREET

BRUCE STREET

HIGHLAND STREET

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N10

HIGHWAY 21

JOH

NS

TO

N A

VE

NU

E

SHIPLEYAVENUE

BRUCE ROAD 33

NORTH SHORE ROAD

BR

UC

ER

OA

D1 7

GU

STA

VU

S S

TR

EE

T

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 6

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 2

5

WELLINGTON STREET

51.5 ha

49.2 ha

9.9 ha

9.7 ha

90.3 ha

2.6 ha

10.1 ha

111.0 ha

29.3 ha

12.0 ha

17.7 ha

2

1

3

13

16

11

12

4

14

6

5

7

8

9

10

18

15

65.3 ha

17

19

14.4 ha

17.4 ha13.6 ha

43.4 ha

12.8 ha

7.8 ha

54.7 ha

A

Match Line

Settlement Area

Study Limits

Port Elgin Non-Sewered and/or Development Area

Southampton Non-Sewered and/or Development Area

Lake Huron

SAUGEEN BEACH ROAD

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 4

MATCH LINE 2

29.3 ha

2


SEPT. 2014

SCALE1 : 30,000


3.4APort Elgin and Area Non-Sewered and Future Development Areas

0 500 1,000250 Metres

´

MA

TC

H L

INE

1

Lake Huron

BRUCE ROAD

SO

UT

H S

TR

EE

T

MO

RP

ET

H S

TR

EE

T

PE

EL

ST

RE

ET

MCNABB STREET

CLA

RE

ND

ON

ST

RE

ET

CARLISLE STREET

ALBERT STREET SOUTH

GROSVENOR STREET SOUTH

GREY STREET NORTH

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 3

LOU

ISA

ST

RE

ET

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 1

4

SA

UG

EE

N S

TR

EE

T

HURON STREET SOUTH

HARMER STREET

GRENVILLE STREET SOUTH

HIG

H S

TR

EE

T

ANGLESIA STREET SOUTHRAILW

AY STREET

TYENDINAGA DRIVE

BLANCHFIELD ROAD

SOU

TH RA

NKIN

STREE

T

NORTH RANKIN STREET

HIGHWAY 21

MIRAMICHI BAY ROAD

54.7 ha

28.3 ha

15.3 ha

11.7 ha

36.4 ha9.2 ha 12.7 ha

A

D

B

C

F

E G H

2.5 ha

7 12.8 ha

17.7 ha15

Match Line

Settlement Area

Study Limits



0 500 1,000250 Metres

´


SEPT. 2014

SCALE1 : 30,000


3.4BSouthampton and Area Non-Sewered and Future Development Areas




4.0 SAUGEEN SHORES DRINKING WATER SYSTEM

4.1 Description

The Town of Saugeen Shores is serviced by a water treatment and distribution system which

takes water from Lake Huron. The former communities of Port Elgin, Southampton and portions

of Saugeen Township historically had two separate water supply, treatment and distribution

systems. These systems have since been combined into a single communal system. The existing

system operates under Municipal Drinking Water License (MDWL) No. 093-101 Issue 1, dated

August 4, 2011 (Ref 7) and Drinking Water Works Permit (DWWP) 093-201 Issue 1, dated

August 3, 2011 (Ref 8). The locations of the major facilities of the existing Saugeen Shores

drinking water system are shown in Figures 4.1A and 4.1B.

As noted, until 2007 there were two independent drinking water systems. The Port Elgin WTP

was constructed on the beach area in the 1950’s and upgraded in the 1970’s. The existing

Southampton WTP was constructed in the early 1970’s on Grosvenor Street near Island Street. It

was substantially upgraded and expanded in 2006 – 2007.

Prior to the renovation and expansion of the Southampton WTP, a Class EA recommended that

the two separate water systems be combined into one system with water being supplied from an

expanded Southampton WTP. When the renovated and expanded Southampton WTP went into

operation in June 2007, the Port Elgin WTP was put into backup mode and scheduled for

decommissioning. The combined Saugeen Shores water system currently operates with two

pressure zones. Port Elgin, and Grenville Street and areas east of Grenville Street in

Southampton, are located within Zone 2. Zone 2 is at a higher elevation than Zone 1, which

services areas west of Grenville Street in Southampton.

Table 4.1 summarizes the approved water supply capacity of the Southampton WTP.

Table 4.1

Existing Southampton WTP Capacity

4 in service permeate pumps @ 73 L/s each (+ 1 spare) 25,229 m3/d

2 in service low lift pumps @ 104 L/s each (+ 1 spare) 17,971 m3/d

High lift 2 + 1 (Port Elgin; Zone 2) = 2 x 54 L/s @ TDH of 80 m

High lift 2 + 2 (Southampton; Zone 1) = 50 L/s + 60 L/s @ TDH of 50 m

Total High Lift Capacity 2.

9,331 m3/d

9,504 m3/d

18,835 m3/d

Rated capacity of water plant as per Schedule C of MDWL 18,000 m3/d

Notes: 1. Treatment capacity when membrane system is fully populated.

2. Total capacity based on independent systems

The membrane units are currently populated to treat approximately 12,500 m3/d.

!(

Lake Huron

")

Standpipe ReservoirPumping Station

MA

TC

H L

INE

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

7

ARLINGTON STREET

GODERICH STREET

MA

RK

ET

ST

RE

ET

PR

OV

INC

IAL

ST

RE

ET

HILKER STREET

SOUTHAMPTON STREET

KAAKE STREET

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 10

BL

UE

WA

TE

R D

RIV

E

HIGHWAY 21

CA

TH

ER

INE

ST

RE

ET

PE

IRS

ON

AV

EN

UE

SHIPLEY AVENUE

CUTTER ROAD

CR

AW

FO

RD

ST

RE

ET

CHAPPELL SIDEROAD LINKS SIDEROAD

SIDEROAD 13 & 14 DOLL SIDEROAD

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 2

5

WELLINGTON STREETE

UG

EN

IE S

TR

EE

T

SUMPTON STREET

EASTWOOD DRIVE

PA

RK

WO

OD

DR

IVE

SAUGEEN BEACH RO

AD

250mm

300mm

400mm

500mm

Water Service Area

0 250 500125 Metres

´


NOV. 3, 2014

SCALE1 : 28,000


4.1ASaugeen Shores Water System - South Part

!(

")

Standpipe

Water Treatment Plant

MA

TC

H L

INE

Lake Huron

BRUCE ROAD

NORTH RANKINSTREET

SO

UT

H S

TR

EE

T

HURON STREET SOUTHFRONT STREET

VICTORIA STREET SOUTH

LAKE STREET

PE

EL

ST

RE

ET

HIGHWAY 21

ISL

AN

D S

TR

EE

T

ECKFORD AVENUE

CARLISLE STREET

CO

LE B

OU

LEV

AR

D

SP

EN

CE

ST

RE

ET


ANGLESIA STREET NORTH

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 3

BREADALBANE STREET SOUTH

GREY STREET SOUTH


CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 1

4

MIRAMICHI BAYROAD

RAIL

WAY

STREET

TYENDINAGA DRIVE

LOU

ISA

ST

RE

ET

LINKS SIDEROAD

SA

UG

EE

NS

TR

EE

T

250mm

300mm

400mm

500mm

Water Service Area

0 250 500125 Metres

´


NOV. 3, 2014

SCALE1 : 28,000


4.1BSaugeen Shores Water System - North Part




There are treated water storage facilities located at the WTP and within the distribution

system. There are standpipes located in each community and adjacent to the Port Elgin

standpipe is a ground reservoir and booster pumping station (BPS).

Three high lift pumps (2 duty, 1 backup) are located within the expanded Southampton WTP

which pump water to the higher pressure Zone 2. Four additional high lift pumps (2 duty, 2

backup) are also located within the plant and pump water to the lower pressure Zone 1. One

of these four pumps can pump water to either pressure zone. The pressures in each zone are

maintained by the water levels in the respective standpipes.

Four pressure sustaining valves were installed to allow water to flow from the higher pressure

Zone 2 to the lower pressure Zone 1, however these valves are not currently functioning

because of operational difficulties with low flows and low pressure differential. The purpose

of the valves was to allow surplus storage in the Port Elgin service area to be made available

for use in the Southampton service area. Currently the valves are fully closed with no water

being able to flow between the two pressure zones unless they are opened manually.

Additional clearwell capacity was added to the Southampton treatment plant site during the

2007 expansion which provides additional storage for the distribution systems.

Figure 4.2 provides details of the Saugeen Shores water system in schematic form.

Some investigations were undertaken in 2009 to determine the feasibility of operating the

Southampton area distribution system at the higher pressure of the Port Elgin area system.

This would mitigate problems with low pressure conditions in Southampton north of the

Saugeen River. A BPS was once in operation north of the Saugeen River to increase water

pressures in the area; however the pumping station has since been decommissioned.

Watermain improvements were completed in 2012 to enhance water servicing north of the

Saugeen River. The Town has operated the two distribution systems as one combined system

with one pressure zone on a few occasions and has not experienced any major operational

issues. As discussed in later sections, harmonization of the water pressure within the

combined distribution system may require operational changes at the Southampton WTP and

modifications to the Southampton standpipe.

4.2 Issues Identified in 2009

No significant water supply issues were identified in the 2009 Master Plan. Operation of the

distribution system as a single zone was identified as an opportunity. To do so was expected

to trigger the need for modifications to the booster pumping facilities at the base of the

Southampton standpipe. Potential projects identified were as follows:

Addition of a standby pump and generator at the Southampton standpipe.

A watermain on McVicar Street in Port Elgin to connect Trillium Drive and Acton Drive

to increase security of supply to Port Elgin from the Southampton WTP (construction

completed in 2013).

Various trunk watermains to accommodate future development.




4.3 Population Growth and Water Demands

4.3.1 Population Growth

Section 3 identifies the existing and predicted populations for Saugeen Shores. The projected

urban area population growth is presented on Figure 3.1. As of 2014 the water system served

6,836 customers representing 6,970 residential units and 7,753 Equivalent Household Units

(EHU’s).

4.3.2 Existing Demands

Raw water is metered as it enters the Southampton WTP and treated water is metered at two

separate locations as it is pumped to each pressure zone. The volume of treated water

discharged from the Southampton WTP is less than the volume of raw water that enters the

plant as a portion of the treated water produced is used for in-plant processes such as

backwashing. A WTP's reported capacity is based on its net drinking water production rate.

This is equivalent to the difference between gross treated water production and losses due to

in-plant processes and demand. Treated water demands were therefore used as the basis for

water demand calculations. Table 4.2 summarizes both raw and treated water demands from

2011 to 2013.

Table 4.2

Raw and Treated Water Demands (2011 – 2013)

Year Raw Water

(m3/d)

Zone 1 (Southampton)

Demand (m3/d)

Zone 2 (Port Elgin)

Demand (m3/d)

Average Max Day Average Max Day Average Max Day

2011 5,911 10,789 2,186 3,543 3,088 6,055

2012 6,081 11,414 2,266 4,179 3,185 6,122

2013 5,957 11,348 2,238 4,009 3,088 6,316

Average or

Maximum 5,983 11,414 2,230 4,179 3,120 6,316

Based on water demand records from January 2011 to December 2013 (representing

36 months), the average and maximum day treated water demands are 5,350 m3/d and

10,325 m3/d (July 2013) respectively for Zones 1 and 2 combined. This is equivalent to

0.69 m3/d per EHU on average and 1.33 m

3/d per EHU on a maximum day basis as per

Table 4.3.




Table 4.3

Existing Average and Maximum Day Water Demand

Total Number of Existing Equivalent Household Units (EHU’s) 7,753

Average Day Water Demand (2011 to 2013) 5,350 m3/d

Maximum Day Water Demand (July 2013) 10,325 m3/d

Average Day Water Demand per EHU 0.69 m3/d

Maximum Day Water Demand per EHU 1.33 m3/d

Through the period of record, the monthly average day water demand was as low as 4,400 m3

(December 2008) but increased through the summer months likely due to an influx of tourists,

lawn watering and cottagers. The highest monthly average day water demands occurred

during July and August of each year and range from 7,232 m3 (August 2008) to 9,800 m

3

(July 2012).

For the purposes of this study, the maximum water demand value from the summer of 2013 is

recommended as the “benchmark” value. As noted in Table 4.3, the "benchmark" maximum

day water demand of 10,325 m3/d was recorded in July 2013. This value represents the sum

of the maximum day demands for each zone individually during the month of July 2013. It is

probable that this value is greater than the combined maximum day demand for both zones on

a single day as the maximum day demand for each zone individually likely occurred on

different days.

The maximum day demand for the month of July 2013 was also estimated using the month's

average raw water demand and an estimate of water lost due to in-plant processes based on

the average difference between raw water demand and total treated demand for both zones

combined. This calculation resulted in a July 2013 maximum day demand estimate of

10,127 m3/d which is very close to the 10,325 m

3/d previously discussed. This confirms that

10,325 m3/d can be used as the benchmark for existing maximum day demand.

4.3.3 Future Water Demands

The forecasted maximum day water demand in 2034, as presented in Table 4.4, was

calculated as 13,365 m3/d based on the existing maximum day demand per EHU and the

increase in EHU's from 2013 to 2034. This represents an increase in maximum day water

demand of approximately 29% over the next 20 years. The forecasted average day water

demand was calculated in the same way as maximum day demand as per Table 4.4.

Figure 4.3 shows the forecasted growth of average day demand and maximum day demand

from 2013 to 2034.




Table 4.4

Forecasted Average and Maximum Day Water Demand

Increase in Number of Equivalent Household Units (EHUS’s) from

2014 to 2034 2,286

Increase in Average Day Water Demand based on 0.69 m3/d

per EHU 1,577 m

3

Increase in Maximum Day Water Demand based on 1.33 m3/d

per EHU 3,040 m

3

Forecasted Average Day Water Demand in 2034 6,920 m3

Forecasted Maximum Day Water Demand in 2034 13,365 m3

Figure 4.3

Forecasted Average and Maximum Day Water Demand

4.4 WTP Capacity Assessment

Section 4.1 established the rated capacity of the WTP as 18,000 m3/d. The WTP plant

membrane filters are currently set (i.e. populated) for approximately 12,500 m3/d. Section 4.3

identified the 2034 maximum day demand as 13,365 m3. Figure 4.4 shows the relationship

between demand and supply throughout the study period.




Figure 4.4

Water Supply Capacity vs Demand 2014 to 2034

In conclusion, it is apparent that there is substantial reserve water treatment capacity. The

current filter media arrangement will be adequate until near the end of the study period.

4.5 Water Storage Capacity Assessment

4.5.1 Background

Treated water storage serves three functions in a drinking water system:

Peak flow equalization

Fire protection

Emergencies

The amount of storage required is directly related to maximum demands and serviced population.

4.5.2 Existing Facilities

The 2009 Master Plan provided a detailed inventory of existing storage facilities within the

Saugeen Shores water works. It also included an assessment of the capability of each facility to

satisfy each of the three specific functions listed in Section 4.5.1. Table 4.5 provides a summary

of capacities available and notes the operational constraints of each.




Table 4.5

Summary of Treated Water Storage Facilities

Facility Zone Served 1

Available

Volume

(m3)

Operational Constraint

WTP Clear Well Zones

1 and 2 1,600

Use is constrained by the

capacity of the high-lift

pumps.

Southampton

Standpipe Zone 1 3,300

Bottom 1,584 m3 is only

available by pumping.

Port Elgin

Standpipe Zone 2 340

2

Bottom 2,900 m3 is at too

low an elevation to be

effective w/o pumping.

Port Elgin

Reservoir Zone 2 4,500

Use is constrained by the

capacity of the booster

pumps.

Notes: 1 Zone 1 is the Southampton Area west of Grenville St. Zone 2 is the Port Elgin Area and

Grenville St. and areas east of Grenville St. in Southampton.

2 Based on WaterCAD®

modelling for Peak Demand conditions without pumping, water levels

below 229.55 m ASL will not provide adequate pressure (i.e. > 275 kPa) at peak flows.

4.5.3 Operational Description

(a) General

Within the WTP there are two sets of high-lift pumps; each set consists of two operating pumps

and one standby. Each set is dedicated to a zone of the distribution system. There is a fourth

pump for Zone 1 that is not in the normal duty sequence and with manual valve adjustment can

also service Zone 2. The high-lift pumps cycle to maintain water levels in the water storage

standpipes. If demand exceeds the capacity of the high-lift pumps, then water from the

standpipes augments the supply and the standpipe water level lowers.

In Zone 2 (Port Elgin Area), if the standpipe water level drops below a pre-determined set point,

then booster pumps at the adjacent reservoir are signalled to start. These pumps draw from the

reservoir and pump into the distribution system to restore standpipe levels.

In Zone 1 (Southampton Area), as standpipe levels drop, pressures in the distribution system

decline. If the standpipe water level drops to a level where pressures are a concern, a booster

pump located at the base of the standpipe can be started manually. When operating, it increases

system pressures. The pump has no standby and is considered a fire flow/emergency pump.

Although interconnected in several locations, valves between the two zones are closed and each

zone acts independently.




(b) Response of Storage During Peak Demands

Peak hour demands are generally estimated (Ref 9) to be 50% greater than maximum day

demands. Table 4.6 compares estimated peak demands to high-lift pump capacity.

Table 4.6

Peak Demand vs High-lift Capacity

System and Zone Peak Demand (Estimated)

1

(m3/d)

High-Lift Capacity 2

(m3/d)

2014 2034

Southampton – Zone 1 5,8853 7,618 9,504

Port Elgin – Zone 2 9,602 12,429 9,331

Zone 1 + Zone 2 15,490 20,050 See Section 4.5.5 (b)

Notes: 1 Peak flow = 150% of Maximum Day (assumed)

2 Based on Firm Capacity (i.e. largest high-lift pump out of service)

3 Zone 1 is 38% of Total Demand (assumed)

4 Zone 2 is 62% of Total Demand (assumed)

Based on the values in Table 4.6, Zone 1 has considerable excess high-lift capacity, even at the

end of the study period. The result is that peak demands will tend to be satisfied from the water

treatment plant clear well. For demand equalization purposes no system storage is theoretically

required.

Table 4.6 also indicates that Zone 2 Peak Demands exceed the firm high-lift pump capacity.

Therefore the Port Elgin standpipe will drawdown. This will in turn trigger the reservoir booster

pumps to start. They will pump from the ground reservoir to maintain the standpipe water levels.

(c) Impact of Peak Demand on Storage

For Zone 1, peak demands are satisfied by the high-lift pumps discharging from the WTP clear

well. It is generally considered that flow equalization (i.e. the difference between peak and

maximum demands) requires a volume equal to 25% of the maximum day demand. For Zone 1,

which is assumed to use 38% of the total supply, this would be approximately 1,270 m3 (0.25 x

0.38 x 13,365 m3) in 2034. However, for the WTP, the clear well is being replenished at the rate

of 145 L/s as water is being withdrawn. Given the 1600 m3 effective volume of the clear well, it

would take more than 6 hours to deplete it. Therefore, in our opinion, peak demands in Zone 1

will be managed from the WTP Clearwell.

For Zone 2, the water for equalization purposes is withdrawn from the 4,500 m3 ground

reservoir. Unlike the WTP clear well, the reservoir is not being replenished while water is being

discharged. The estimated withdrawal in 2034, at 25% of the maximum daily flow is

approximately 2,070 m3 (i.e. 46% of the available volume).




For design and assessment purposes it is typically assumed that the equalization volume will be

exhausted when the fire flow is required. As noted previously, the equalization requirement for

Zone 1 will come from the WTP Clear Well and for Zone 2 it will come from the ground

reservoir via the BPS.

(d) Response of Storage During Fire Flows

The fire flows and durations used in this report are based on recommended values in the MOE

Design Guidelines (Ref 9). The values are based on serviced population. As noted in previous

calculations, the future values for both zones are based on growth occurring 38% in

Southampton and 62% in Port Elgin. Table 4.7 summarizes the fire demands.

Table 4.7

Fire Flows and Durations

Year

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 and 2

Flow

(L/s)

Duration

(hours)

Flow

(L/s)

Duration

(hours)

Flow

(L/s)

Duration

(hours)

2014 162 3 194 3 249 3

2034 176 3 223 3 281 4

Typical practice is to assume that a fire occurs when the storage facility’s equalization volume is

exhausted and simultaneous with maximum day demand conditions.

For Zone 1, the 2034 maximum day demand is 5,079 m3/d or 59 L/s. Therefore during a fire

event the total demand would be (176 + 59) 235 L/s. This rate exceeds the capacity of the

Zone 1 high-lifts. Therefore the Southampton standpipe will drawdown. Based on a 3 hour fire

duration, the total volume withdrawn from the standpipe will be approximately 1,350 m3

[(235 –

110) L/s x 3 hours]. This will draw the standpipe water level down to approximately 218 m

ASL. At this elevation, the minimum Zone 1 pressure would be less than 140 kPa. This is less

than an acceptable (Ref 9) pressure. Our calculations indicate that similar conditions could

happen at existing demands.

The booster (fire flow/emergency) pump system at the base of the standpipe is designed to

augment the flows from the WTP during a high demand event (e.g. large fire). Alternatively, the

valves that separate Zones 1 and 2 could be opened, thus increasing supply. Although the

probability of a large fire occurring simultaneously with maximum day demands is low, it is not

considered a best practice to require manual operation of facilities as part of the response.

Automatic response of fire flow facilities is recommended.




For Zone 2, the 2034 maximum day demand is 9,090 m3 or 105 L/s. During a fire event the total

demand would be (105 + 223) 328 L/s of which 108 L/s would be provided by the Zone 2 high-

lift pumps at the WTP. The 220 L/s balance would come from the ground storage reservoir

which has a firm capacity of 279 L/s. For a 3 hour fire duration the total volume from storage

would be (220 L/s x 3 hours) 2,376 m3. In Section 4.5.3 (c), it was determined that, following

peak flow equalization, the net reservoir volume would be 2,430 m3. Therefore 54 m

3 of the

maximum day plus fire demand will come from the Port Elgin standpipe, drawing it down to

approximately 249 m ASL. At this elevation, based on the WaterCAD® modelling, the

minimum Zone 2 pressure would still exceed 140 kPa. This is considered acceptable, but it is

important to note that in the future (i.e. beyond 2034), there will eventually be limitations to

providing service to higher areas or a greater population.

(e) Emergency Storage

MOE Guidelines (Ref 9) recommend that 25% of the sum of the equalization and fire storage

requirements be available for emergencies. Table 4.8 presents this requirement for each Zone.

Table 4.8

Theoretical Storage Requirement at 2034

Storage Purpose Zone 1

(m3)

Zone 2

(m3)

Zone 1 + 2

(m3)

Equalization 1,270 2,072 3,341

Fire 1,901 2,408 4,046

Emergency 793 1,120 1,847

Total 3,964 5,600 9,234

It was previously established for Zone 1, under a fire condition the standpipe would be drawn

down to approximately 218 m. The remaining effective volume (i.e. to 196 m ASL) of the

structure would be approximately 1,936 m3. Therefore, the emergency storage requirement in

Zone 1 is satisfied, provided the booster pump can operate.

For Zone 2, it was established that, following a fire, the standpipe would be drawn down to

249 m ASL. The 2009 master Plan established 236 m ASL as the lowest elevation that would be

effective for emergency storage. The resulting available volume is [(245 – 236) x 65.5 m3/m]

590 m3. This is theoretically less than the 1,120 m

3 required as per Table 4.8. However, the

WTP clear well will still have more than 590 m3 [See Section 4.5.3 (c)], so, the existing facilities

satisfy the emergency storage requirement.

4.5.4 Conclusions re Storage – 2 Zones

The following conclusions have been reached as a result of our analysis of the existing treated

water storage facilities:




Re Zone 1 – Southampton

Peak flow equalization will be achieved by the operation of the Zone 1 high-lift pumps

discharging from the WTP clear well. The WTP will tend to keep the clear well

replenished with slow drawdown.

During a theoretical significant fire condition, the standpipe will draw down to

unacceptable water levels and necessitate either operating the booster pump at the base of

the standpipe, or opening valves between Zones 1 and 2.

The standpipe drawdown issue exists in the present scenario and risks will increase

somewhat with growth and development.

Re Zone 2 – Port Elgin

Peak flow equalization will be achieved by the booster pumps at the ground reservoir

responding to lowering water levels in the adjacent standpipe. It is not expected that

standpipe levels will decline once the booster pumps are called to operate.

Peak flow operation of the booster pumps will result in depletion of the ground reservoir

volume from 4,500 m3 to approximately 2,070 m

3.

A significant fire event, as defined by MOE Guidelines (Ref 9), can be managed with the

existing storage facilities. The existing facilities would be near the limit of their

capabilities by 2034, based on growth and development predictions.

4.5.5 Operation as a Single Pressure Zone

(a) Background

Operation of the Saugeen Shores Water System as a single zone was identified as an

opportunity in the 2009 Master Plan. The advantage that a single pressure zone offers is

increased pressures in parts of Southampton that currently have marginally acceptable

pressure and flow conditions. In 2009, a single zone was determined to be feasible provided

that the Southampton Standpipe Booster facility was upgraded with an additional pump and a

generator set.

(b) Operational Description

Currently the high-lift pumps at the Southampton WTP start/stop based on standpipe water

level information in each zone. In a single zone concept it is expected the control for the

entire system would be based on water level in the Port Elgin standpipe.

Currently there are seven high-lift pumps. It would be possible to put all seven in a duty

sequence. The Zone 1 high-lifts are each currently designated to discharge approximately

60 L/s at 50 m Total Dynamic Head (TDH). Based on the available pump curves, it is

estimated that the capacity will reduce to approximately 38 L/s at the higher Zone 2 pressures.

In Section 4.5.3 (b) it was determined that the 2034 peak demand would be approximately

20,050 m3/d or 232 L/s. This rate could be met from simultaneous operation of three Zone 2

and two Zone 1 high-lifts or, as would be better from an operational standpoint, a combination

of high-lifts and the booster pumps at the Port Elgin Ground Reservoir.




It is important to note that in a single zone system, the Southampton standpipe will require the

inlet/outlet valving be closed to prevent overflow. As discussed later in the Master Plan,

provision would have to be made for periodic turnover of the contents.

(c) Impact of Peak Demand on Storage

As noted, the 2034 estimated peak demand (see Table 4.6) is 20,050 m3/d. This value is less

than the firm capacity of the WTP high-lift pumping system, which is estimated to be

(3 x 54 L/s + 3 x 28 L/s) 23,850 m3/d, but greater than the currently equipped capacity of

12,500 m3/d and the rated capacity of the WTP (18,000 m

3/d) from Table 4.1.

Based on a flow equalization requirement of 25% of the maximum day, the volume will be

approximately 3,340 m3. This is more than the WTP clear well volume (i.e. 1,600 m

3), but

less than the Port Elgin Ground Reservoir (i.e. 4,500 m3) and only about 55% of the total

available.

Therefore, there is adequate treated water storage to meet peak flow requirements for beyond

the study period for this Master Plan.

(d) Response of Storage During Fire Flows

As set out in Table 4.7, the recommended (Ref 9) fire flow (281 L/s) is considerably less than

for two independent systems. However, the recommended duration increases from 3 hours to

4 hours which off-sets the benefit from the lower flow rate.

The total fire storage recommended for 2034 is 281 L/s for 4 hours or 4,046 m3. Assuming

the equalization volume (3,340 m3), identified in the previous section, is exhausted then part

of the fire storage must come from the existing standpipes. Approximately the top 5 m of the

Port Elgin standpipe is available by gravity. Below that point, distribution system pressures

in the higher elevation areas become too low.

Therefore, it will be necessary to initiate the booster pump at the Southampton standpipe to

augment supplies and prevent the Port Elgin Standpipe levels dropping to unacceptable levels

(i.e. below 245.5 mASL).

(e) Total Storage Required

In addition to equalization and fire storage, MOE Guidelines (Ref 9) also recommend that

there be treated water storage for emergencies. This is typically 25% of the sum of the other

purposes. Figure 4.5 shows the water storage required for all purposes presented against

available quantities.




Figure 4.5

Water Storage Required vs Available in a Single Zone System

Figure 4.5 demonstrates that, provided the Southampton Standpipe is equipped with booster

pumping equipment, there is adequate water storage for the 20 year study period. The figure

also demonstrates there is already a theoretical deficiency if it is not equipped with a pump.

In a single zone system it will be necessary to have the Southampton Standpipe normally

isolated from the system. Some of the contents (10% to 20%) will need to be pumped into the

distribution system daily to keep the contents fresh. This will require some automation and

probable changes to the pumping equipment.

The degree of augmentation and the complexity of the pumping equipment will depend on a

number of considerations including overall system control, energy usage and financial

resources.

4.6 Water Distribution System Modelling

4.6.1 Background

The Saugeen Shores water distribution system was modelled using WaterCAD®. The purpose of

the modelling was to identify potential flow and pressure issues during periods of high demand

and to determine requirements for supplying future development areas.

4.6.2 Model Details

(a) WaterCAD® Software

BMROSS used Bentley®

WaterCAD® V8i (SELECTseries 4) for the water distribution system

modelling. The model contains 473 pipes and 327 junctions.




(b) Sources of Data

In order to produce a WaterCAD® model for the Saugeen Shores watermain network, several

sources of information were used. In summary:

Watermain installation locations and diameters were obtained from distribution system

mapping (i.e. AutoCAD file) provided by the Town of Saugeen Shores.

Watermain C-factors were assigned in accordance with values provided in the MOE

Guidelines (Ref 9), as summarized in the table below.

Diameter

(mm) C

150 100

200-250 110

300-600 120

Elevation information was obtained from a combination of previous model details (Ref 3),

BMROSS records from previous work, Google™ Earth imagery, and data provided by the

Town.

Pump and storage characteristics were obtained from a combination of the 2009 Master Plan,

the DWWP for the Saugeen Shores Drinking Water System, and information provided by the

Town (Ref 8).

Water demand information was developed as part of this Master Plan (refer to Section 4.3).

Assessments for fire protection capability were made using typical fire flow values including:

40 to 50 L/s for residential areas

100 to 150 L/s for dispersed commercial development such as highway commercial

200 L/s for older, contiguous construction commercial areas

All fire flows were assessed at 140 kPa minimum system residual pressure.

(c) Establishing Flows at Junctions

WaterCAD® model “junctions” are created at every pipe intersection or dead-end. Water

demands for the system are applied at these junctions. For the existing Saugeen Shores model,

the total system demand was divided by the total number of model junctions in order to calculate

the demand per junction. This demand value was assigned to each junction.

For the 2034 development model, the assumed locations for future trunk watermains were

incorporated into the model, creating a series of additional pipes and junctions within the

development lands. Demands for existing development were left unchanged, and the

incremental future demand was divided amongst the nearest model junctions within or adjacent

to the development lands. For the model, incremental future demand (2034) was estimated to be

an additional 1,580 m3/d for average day and 3,040 m

3/d for maximum day.




4.6.3 Analyses Run

In general, the model was used to determine system pressures under average and peak demands,

and available fire flows under maximum day demands, for both existing and future development

scenarios under different storage and pumping configurations. The modelling was carried out for

the existing two-zone system, as well as a single pressure zone system, in order to understand the

impacts to pressure and flow when moving from a two-zone to a single-zone system. Varying

pump status (i.e. on/off) and water storage levels in the standpipes were analyzed, in order to

determine how the need for pumping and storage might change based on two-zone or single-zone

operation. A detailed list of all model scenarios includes:

Existing development demands (average, peak)

o Two-zone operation, Standpipes at high water level (HWL)

High-lift pumps (HLPs) on

HLPs off

o Single-zone operation, Standpipes at HWL

HLPs on

HLPs off

Existing development demands (maximum day) plus fire flow

2034 development demands (average, peak)

o Two-zone operation, Standpipes at HWL

HLPs on

HLPs off

o Single-zone operation, Standpipes at HWL

HLPs on

HLPs off

2034 development demands (maximum day) plus fire flow

4.6.4 Qualifications on Results

Results of the distribution system modelling are based on the system information as described

above. No work was completed in relation to calibration/verification of the model by way of

comparison to actual field data. In the event that future distribution system modifications are to

be based on the results of system modelling, it is recommended that a field testing program be

carried out for the purpose of comparing actual field measurements to model predictions.

4.6.5 Results of Analysis

The results of the WaterCAD®

analysis for both the existing and 20 year (i.e. 2034) conditions

are presented in Table 4.9.




Table 4.9

Summary of WaerCAD ®Analysis

Analysis1,2

and Criteria3

Existing 20 Year

2 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone

Average Flow

No. of junctions with kPa > 700 10 43 10 34

No. of junctions with kPa > 480 and <= 700 136 232 136 225



No. of junctions with kPa < 275 0 0 0 0

Peak Flow

No. of junctions with kPa > 700 7 7 6 4




No. of junctions with kPa < 275 0 0 1 1

Fire Flows

No. of junctions with Q < 40 L/s at 140 kPa 13 1 14 1

No. of junctions with Q > 40 and < 100 L/s at 140 kPa 81 46 86 48

Q at 140 kPa at Intersection of Albert and High (J-1330) 258 306 238 280

Q at 140 kPa at connection to SFN (J-1045) 21 68 20 66 Notes:

1. For peak/average flow kPa > 700 used “WTP pumps on”. For other ranges, used “WTP pumps off”.

2. 20 year scenario assumes same pipe as existing model.

3. Pressure and flow criteria base on MOE Guidelines 2008

Pressures

> 700 kPa not recommended

> 480 kPa but < 700 and > 275, but <350 are acceptable

< 275 kPa unacceptable > 350 but < 480 is optimum

Fire Flows

< 40 L/s not recommended for residential areas

The flow and pressure conditions have been presented on four figures. They are:

4.6A - 2 Zone Average Day for Existing

4.6B - 1 Zone Average Day for Existing

4.6C - 2 Zone Fire Flows for Existing

4.6D - 1 Zone Fire Flows for Existing

4.6.6 Findings for Existing Arrangement

The existing arrangement has two zones interconnected, but operating as independent systems.

Each system referred to as Zone 1 and Zone 2, has its independent supply (high-lift pumps at the

WTP) and storage facilities.




The WaterCAD® model identified the following conditions for the existing two zone

arrangement:

There are no junctions with normal pressures < 275 kPa

10 junctions (≈ 3% of system) have pressures > 700 kPa

Approximately 50 % of the system is in the optimum pressure range (350 kPa to 480) during

average and peak flows

13 junctions (≈ 4%) have <40 L/s fire flow

Conversion of the system to operate as a single pressure zone using the Port Elgin standpipe as a

control point would result in the following:

The number of junctions with pressure > 700 kPa will increase from 10 (≈ 3%) to 43 (≈ 13%)

under average flow conditions.

Most junctions will change from optimum to higher than optimum, but acceptable pressures.

Only one junction will have a fire flow < 40 L/s.

Fire flows in the central business area of Southampton will increase by 20 %

Fire flows at the connection to Saugeen First Nation will increase by ≈ 300 % (to > 65 L/s).

4.6.7 Findings for 20 year Scenario

With reference to Table 4.9, the model predicts the following for 2034:

The pressure and flow conclusions for a change from two to one zone are very similar for the

20 year and existing scenarios. The one exception is that under peak demands more of the

system (≈ 60 %) would be in the optimum pressure range.

4.6.8 Conclusions re One or Two Zones

Under normal (i.e. non-fire) demand conditions an additional 10 % of the system will be

subjected to pressures greater than recommended by MOE Guidelines. This presents some risk

and could potentially result in more breaks and/or leakage. The risk is off-set somewhat by the

knowledge that:

A number of trials as a single zone have been undertaken with few problems reported.

Some areas of Zone 2 already have > 700 kPa pressures, apparently without problems.

In our opinion it is probable that some properties will require the installation of pressure

reducing valves (PRV’s) on the individual services.

There will be some long-term benefit to the single zone arrangement for peak flow conditions.

More of the system will be operating at optimum pressures than at this time.




The greatest benefit to conversion to a single zone is in terms of fire flows, particularly to areas

north of the River. With a single pressure zone only a single junction is indicating a fire flow

< 40 L/s at 140 k Pa residual pressure.

In summary, conversion to a single zone will increase fire protection capability, but also increase

the risk of breaks and leakage. A decision to proceed should be based on consideration of:

The age and material of watermain that will be subject to higher pressures.

The opinion of the fire department as to the benefit of increased flows.

The cost of the necessary control and pump changes.

Some other specific findings of the distribution system modelling were:

Operating as a single zone will increase pressures in some parts of the Southampton area to

values in the order of 700 kPa. If they are not already available, pressure reducing valves

may be required on individual services.

The system has considerable redundancy in terms of storage facilities. The fact that the WTP

is in one community and most of the storage is in the other is an asset.

Disruption of the 500 mm trunk supply to the Port Elgin area is a risk, but it is mitigated by

the fact that there is sufficient storage in the Port Elgin area. Repair materials should be on

hand should a breakdown occur.

Development of the east parts of Southampton should ideally occur from south to north,

taking advantage of the trunk supply along the Highway 21 corridor. Without connection to

this source, fire flows in the east part will always be restricted.

The Southampton Standpipe is a critical component of the fire protection capacity in what is

now Zone 1. Although not critical at this time, moving to full automation of this facility

should be considered.

Operation as a single zone will require modification of the pumping system at the

Southampton Standpipe to permit regular turnover of the contents.




4.6.9 Conclusions and Recommendations

The following are general conclusions reached as a result of the modelling.

A WaterCAD® model was created for the Saugeen Shores distribution network. The model

was used for general analysis of existing and potential future system conditions. Should the

model be used for specific system modifications, it is recommended that a

calibration/verification exercise be carried out, including the collection of data from a field

testing program.

The Saugeen Shores system is currently operated as a two pressure zone system (Port Elgin

area and Southampton area). Transitioning to a single pressure zone appears to be feasible,

with little impact to the Port Elgin area system and increased pressure and flow availability to

the Southampton area. Modifications to the high-lift pump and standpipe controls would be

required.

Conversion to a single zone will provide increased fire flows in Zone 1 at the risk of

increased pressure and resulting breaks and leakage. A decision to go to one zone must be

made after consideration of:

Existing watermain ages and materials.

The benefits of better fire flow as judged by the fire department.

The cost of system modifications.

With proper watermain sizing and looping, adequate supply to future development lands can

be provided for normal operating conditions. Available fire flow, within the northeastern

area of Southampton, may be at, or slightly lower than, typical optimum requirements for

residential areas. This is already the case for the existing system extremities in that area.

Figures 4.7A and 4.7B provide suggested trunk watermain sizing to accommodate the future

development areas. It is important to note that the required watermain sizing is dependent on

the actual scale and sequence of development. The watermain sizes indicated on the figures

are considered sufficient provided there is internal looping.

The watermains shown in Figure 4.7B (Southampton Area) are only necessary if development

proceeds east of the existing Settlement Area boundary.

!(

MA

TC

H LIN

E 1

Lake Huron

MATCH LINE 2

")

Standpipe ReservoirPumping Station

GODERICH STREET

BRICKER STREET

BRUCE STREET

HIGHLAND STREET

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N10

HIGHWAY 21

JOH

NS

TO

N A

VE

NU

E

SHIPLEYAVENUE

BRUCE ROAD 33

NORTH SHORE ROAD

BR

UC

ER

OA

D1 7

GU

STA

VU

S S

TR

EE

T

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 6

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 2

5

WELLINGTON STREET

51.5 ha

49.2 ha

9.9 ha

9.7 ha

90.3 ha

2.6 ha

10.1 ha

111.0 ha

29.3 ha

12.0 ha

17.7 ha

2

1

3

13

16

11

12

4

14

6

5

7

8

9

10

18

15

65.3 ha

17

19

14.4 ha

17.4 ha13.6 ha

43.4 ha

12.8 ha

7.8 ha

47.1 ha

A

250

250

300

250

300

250

300

250

250mm

300mm

400mm

500mm

Proposed Trunk Watermain and Diameter (mm)



Lake Huron

SAUGEEN BEACH ROAD

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 4

MATCH LINE 2

29.3 ha

2


NOV. 3, 2014

SCALE1 : 30,000


4.7ASaugeen Shores Water System Extensions - South Part

0 500 1,000250 Metres

´

300

!(

MATC

H LIN

E 1

Lake Huron

Standpipe

Water Treatment Plant

")

BRUCE ROAD

SOUT

H ST

REET

MORP

ETH

STRE

ET

PEEL

STR

EET

MCNABB STREET

CLAR

ENDO

N ST

REET

CARLISLE STREET

ALBERT STREET SOUTH


GREY STREET NORTH

BRUC

E RO

AD 3

LOUI

SA S

TREE

T

CONC

ESSI

ON 14

HURON STREET SOUTHHARMER STREET


HIGH

STR

EET

ANGLESIA STREET SOUTHRAILWAY STREET

TYENDINAGA DRIVE

BLANCHFIELD ROAD

SOUTH RANKIN STREET

NORTH RANKIN STREET

HIGHWAY 21

MIRAMICHI BAY ROAD 54.7 ha

28.3 ha

15.3 ha

11.7 ha

36.4 ha 9.2 ha 12.7 ha

A

D

B

C

F

E G H

2.5 ha

7 12.8 ha

17.7 ha15

200

300

200

200300 300

300

250mm

300mm

400mm

500mm

Proposed Trunk Watermain and Diameter (mm)



0 500 1,000250 Metres

´


SEPT. 2014SCALE


4.7BSaugeen Shores Water System Extensions - North Part

300




4.7 Conclusions for Saugeen Shores Drinking Water System

4.7.1 Supply and Storage

The Southampton WTP is currently operating during maximum day demands at

approximately 58% of its rated capacity. At projected growth rates this will increase to 75%

by 2034. Figure 4.4 shows this graphically.

Provided the pumping facilities at the base of the Southampton Standpipe are functional, there

is adequate treated water storage to accommodate growth to at least 2034. As demands

increase there will be greater value in fully automating the pumping facilities and adding

standby power facilities to reduce risks related to power failure.

No consideration has been given in this Master Plan to the condition and life expectancy of

the existing storage structures. If, at some point, a decision is made to replace a structure then

we recommend consideration be given to the following:

The type of structure (elevated tank or standpipe).

The top water level (ideally Southampton should have a higher top water level elevation).

The materials of construction (coated steel or glass-fused to steel).

With respect to material, it has sometimes been (e.g. BMROSS, Huron-Kinloss Lakeshore

Water System, Point Clark Standpipe) established that glass-fused to steel has a better life

cycle cost.

4.7.2 Watermains

Figures 4.7A and 4.7B identify a number of proposed trunk watermains. It should be noted

that:

The locations are presented schematically.

No specific watermain improvements have been identified for existing development.

The location of the proposed trunk watermain in the Southampton area, shown outside the

Settlement Area Boundary is the preferred long-term location. These mains would benefit

proposed development, but are not a condition of development inside the present

boundary.

The MTO requires that any future Class EA related to the expansion of the water

distribution system consider all viable alternatives to placing utilities inside the Highway

21 corridor. The MOT currently does not support or endorse utilities placed within the

Highway 21 corridor.

Any expansions to the water distribution system will also be subject to screenings for

cultural heritage and archeological resources.




4.8 Suggested Projects and Capital Costs

The projects listed in Table 4.10 relate to the opportunity to convert operations from two

pressure zones to a single zone. We have also identified projects to increase the security of

supply at the Southampton Standpipe. All costs are in 2014 $.

Table 4.10

Saugeen Shores Water System – Capital Projects

Project Purpose Description

Probable

Cost

(2014$)

To increase filtration

capacity

Provide additional membranes to increase

capacity from 12,500 m3/d to 13,365 m

3/d

$90,000

To allow a single

pressure zone

Provide pressure reducing valves on

individual services in lowest areas of Zone 1

$20,000 to

$50,000

Modify SCADA and related controls $80,000 to

$100,000

Add duty pump to Southampton Standpipe

for circulation (including building) $250,000

Add a 2nd

booster pump $125,0002

To increase security at

Southampton

Standpipe

Add a standby generator $100,0002

Notes:

1. All costs based on 2014$.

2. Probable cost assumes building is expanded as part of creating a single zone. If not, add $100,000.

When considering the above projects, it is important to note that several trials operating as a

single pressure zone have been completed with success. The projects suggested above would

increase security, automate the operation of the booster system and reduce energy costs

related to turnover of the contents. They are not necessary for a single zone operation, but

will be more relevant and valuable as the population and water demands increase over time.

As discussed previously, any consideration of operating the water distribution as a single zone

must be made with due consideration to:

The consequences of increased pressure with respect to pipe age and material.

The benefits of better fire protection.

The costs of implementation as identified above.




5.0 PORT ELGIN SEWAGE SYSTEM

5.1 Description

Most of the original Port Elgin sanitary sewage system was constructed either during or prior to

the early 1960’s, including the initial sewer system, the original sewage pumping stations and

forcemains, and a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).

The original WWTP and a replacement plant, constructed in 1975, have been decommissioned

and in the mid 1990’s were replaced with an extended aeration WWTP in the northwest part of

the community, east of Lehnen Street. The WWTP generally consists of two aeration tanks, two

final clarifiers and sludge digestion and storage facilities. A new headworks building was

constructed at the plant in 2011. The facility currently operates under Amended Certificate of

Approval (now referred to as an Environmental Compliance Approval or ECA) No. 4186-

8FFRDQ, issued April 7, 2011 (Ref 10).

The WWTP has an Annual Average Day Flow rating (i.e. Rated Capacity) of 6,455 m3/d. The

inlet works, constructed in 2011 are rated at 38,275 m3/d (443 L/s). The balance of the principal

treatment facilities have a design peak hydraulic rating of 18,720 m3/d (217 L/s) based on the

UV disinfection system and reported outfall sewer capacity. The ECA does not identify peak

flow or maximum day rates as compliance criteria. The design capacity of the clarifiers is

dependent on solids loading, as well as hydraulic considerations.

The WWTP discharges to the Saugeen River through an outfall sewer that passes under Mill

Creek, whereas the ECA indicates the discharge is to the Creek. A Class Environmental

Assessment is currently underway to investigate the feasibility of discharge directly to Mill

Creek. The EA will address the capacity of the outfall.

The sewage collection system includes 6 sewage pumping stations (SPS’s), four of which serve

relatively small local areas throughout the community. Two of the stations, Harbour Street and

10th

Concession are large and discharge directly to the WWTP. The 10th

Concession facility

went into operation in 2010 to allow diversion of excess flow from the Harbour Street facility

and to permit additional development in the north part of the Port Elgin WWTP Service Area.

Figure 5.1 shows the general location of the major facilities for the Port Elgin sanitary system

including all sewers greater than 250 mm diameter.

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

Lake Huron

Harbour Street SPSDrainage Area

") WastewaterTreatment Plant

10th Concession SPSDrainage Area

Lake Huron

BRUC

E RO

AD 17

IZZARD ROAD

MILL

CREE

KRO

AD

ARLINGTON STREET

GODERICH STREET

MARK

ET S

TREE

T

WOO

DLAN

DD R

I VE

HARBOUR STREET

RIVE

R ST

REET

GEDDES STREET

BRICKER STREET

MACKENZIE ROAD

PROV

INCI

AL S

TREE

T

MAPLEWOOD DRIVE

RAY STREET

HIGHLAND STREET

JOS EPHSTR EET

HILKER STREET

BROOK LANE

SOUTHAMPTON STREET

KAAKE STREET

CONCESSION 10

BLUE

WAT

ER D

RIVE

HIGHWAY 21

CATH

ERIN

E ST

REET

PEIR

SON

AVEN

UE

SHIPLEY AVENUE

CUTTER ROAD

CRAW

FORD

STR

EET

CHAPPELL SIDEROAD LINKS SIDEROAD

FENTON DRIVE

SIDEROAD 13 & 14 DOLL SIDEROAD

CONCESSI ON6

GUST

AVUS

STR

EET

IVIN

GSDR

IVE

BRUC

E RO

AD 25

WELLINGTON STREET

EUGE

NIE

STRE

ET

LOU ISS TR E E T

SUMPTON STREET

MAPLE

DRIVE

EASTWOOD DRIVE

PARK

WOO

D DR

IVE

!( Sanitary Pumping Station

300mm

350mm

375mm

400mm

450mm

525mm

600mm

Drainage Area Boundary

Sewage Service Area

0 250 500125 Metres

´


SEPT. 2014SCALE


5.1Existing Port Elgin Sewage System





The 2009 Master Plan investigated sewage servicing requirements to 2028. The following issues

were identified:

Projected peak flows would exceed the theoretical capacity of the final clarifiers, UV

disinfection facilities and the outfall sewer.

There was evidence of surcharging in the outfall sewer at existing peak flows.

The biosolids being produced in the plant were relatively low in concentration thus

increasing disposal costs and storage volume requirements.

Additional biosolids storage will be required before 2028.

At the time of the 2009 Master Plan, the 10th

Concession SPS was not yet in service, nor was the

new headworks facility at the WWTP.

5.3 Population Growth and Sewage Flows



urban area population growth is presented on Figure 3.1. Currently there are approximately 459

properties in the Port Elgin Area that have municipal water supply, but no sewer service. For

purposes of assessing WWTP capacity requirements, we have assumed these properties will be

added as serviced customers during the 2014 to 2034 study period.

5.3.2 Existing Sewage Flows

Sewage flow data from 2011 to 2013 was used to determine the benchmark average day

and maximum day flow values for the Port Elgin sewage system. Values of 3,735 m3/d and

10,212 m3/d were calculated for average day and maximum day flow respectively. During this

period, average day flows did not exceed the rated capacity of the plant. Annual sewage flow

data for the Port Elgin WWTP, from 2011 to 2013, is summarized in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1

Port Elgin WWTP Sewage Flows

Year Sewage Flow (m

3/d)

Average Max. Day

2011 3,911 7,001

2012 3,275 5,115

2013 4,021 10,212

Average or Maximum 3,735 10,212




The total number of EHU’s for wastewater, as presented in Section 3.2, was split 62% Port Elgin

and 38% Southampton based on the number of customers in each zone. This resulted in a total

of (6,756 x 0.62) 4,189 EHU’s for the Port Elgin service area. Each EHU is assumed to have a

population of 2.38 persons.

Applying this information to the flows in Table 5.1 results in 0.89 m3/d per EHU for average day

flow and 2.44 m3/d per EHU for maximum day flow as per table 5.2. These values include

extraneous flows.

Table 5.2

Existing Average and Maximum Day Sewage Flows (Port Elgin)

Total Number of Existing Equivalent Household Units (EHUS’s) 4,189

Total Equivalent Serviced Population 9,970

Average Day Sewage Flow (2011 to 2013) 3,735 m3/d

Maximum Day Sewage Flow (April 2012) 10,212 m3/d

Average Day Sewage Flow per EHU 0.89 m3/d

Maximum Day Sewage Flow per EHU 2.44 m3/d

Average Day Sewage Flow per capita 0.37 m3/d

Maximum Day Sewage Flow per capita 1.02 m3/d

The 2009 Master Plan estimated the peak flow to the Port Elgin WWTP to be 236 L/s

(20,390 m3/d) based on a single extreme event in March of 2006. No similar event has occurred

since.

All flows to the WWTP are pumped from the Harbour Street and 10th

Concession SPS’s.

Therefore, the actual peak flows would be a function of the pumps that were operating at each

station. Flows are not recorded on an instantaneous basis at the SPS’s. They are only recorded

on a daily basis at the pumping stations and at the discharge from the WWTP.

To estimate the peak flows for projection purposes we proceeded as follows:

Determined the peak extraneous flow as the difference between the maximum daily flow

and the minimum daily flow in 2013.

Estimated the peak sewage component of the flow by applying the Harmon equation to

the minimum daily flow and then adding a 25% safety factor.

Available data is as follows:

Minimum daily flow 2013 = 2,318 m3

Maximum daily flow 2013 = 10,212 m3

Equivalent serviced population = 9,970 (EHU’s = 4,189)

Harmon peaking factor = 2.96




The analysis was as follows:

Peak Extraneous Flow = 10,212 m3/d – 2,318 m

3/d

= 7,894 m3/d

= 91.4 L/s

Peak Sewage Flow = 2,318 x 2.96 x 1.25 (25% safety factor)

= 8,577 m3/d

= 99.3 L/s

Estimated Total Peak Flow = 91.4 L/S + 99.3 L/s

= 190.7 L/s

= 16,475 m3/d

= 3.93 m3/d per EHU

The Port Elgin service area is currently approximately 640 ha. Therefore the peak extraneous

flow was approximately 0.15 L/s per ha. On the basis that 2,318 m3 represented the true sewage

flow, the equivalent per capita unit value would be approximately 0.232 m3/d (2,318 ÷ 9,970).

For future design purposes, we would increase that value by 25% to 0.29 m3/d per capita.

Based on the above analysis, the estimated ratio of peak flow to average flow using the flows per

EHU is 4.42 (3.93 ÷ 0.89), say 4.5.

5.3.3 Future Sewage Flows

Figure 3.3A identifies the expected growth in sewage EHU’s through the study period.

Servicing of existing developed, but currently unserviced, properties is included in the

projection. The projected number of EHU’s connected to the Port Elgin WWTP in 2034 is

6,097.

Realistically, unit sewage flows, both average and peak, will decline as the number of

connections increase. This is in part because modern sewers tend to have less leakage and also

because of the averaging effect on peaks. Therefore applying existing values to the growth

component is considered conservative.

Future (2034) sewage flows applicable to the Port Elgin WWTP have been determined as

follows:

Average Flow (2034)

No. of EHU’s = 6,097

Average Flow per EHU = 0.89 m3/d

2034 Average Day Flow = 6,097 x 0.89

= 5,426 m3/d




Maximum Day Flow (2034)


2034 Maximum Day Flow = 6,097 x 2.44

= 14,877 m3/d

Peak Flow (2034)

Peak Flow per EHU = 3.93 m3/d

2034 Peak Flow = 6,097 x 3.93

= 23,961 m3/d say 24,000 m

3/d

5.4 Sewer Collection System

5.4.1 Existing Issues

No issues have been identified with respect to the existing collection system. The Town

continues to rehabilitate and replace sewers to reduce extraneous flows. The fact that extreme

peak flows observed in 2006 have not been replicated since is evidence of the benefits of the

ongoing efforts.

5.4.2 Extensions for New Development

As noted in Section 3.5, there are a number of existing developed but unserviced, and potential

future development areas within each community. Figure 3.4A identifies nineteen such areas in

the Port Elgin sewer service area.

Table 5.3 identifies for each area, the most likely sewer outlet and expected capacity issues, if

any. Capacities were checked based on the following design parameters:

Population per ha = 13.6 persons

EHU’s per ha = 13.6 ÷ 2.38 persons per EHU

= 5.71

Peak Flow per EHU = 3.93 m3/d (see Section 5.3.3)

Peak Flow per ha = 5.71 x 3.93 m3/d

= 22.46 m3/d

= 0.26 L/s

It is important to note that some of the areas will require local pumping stations to address

topography issues.



Master Plan – 2014 -Draft Report

Table 5.3

Summary of Information for Future Sewers in Port Elgin Service Area

Area

No. Description

Area

(ha)

Peak Sewage

Flow (L/s) Probable Outlet SPS Affected Capacity Issues

1 & 2 Goble’s Grove and

Saugeen Shore Road 80.8 21.0

Local SPS and forcemain

to new sewer at Bruce 25

and extension of Ridge

Street

Harbour Street

There may be capacity issues in the

Harbour St. sewer between Izzard

Road and the SPS. Investigation is

required.

3, 11,

13, 16,

19

Areas South of Bruce 25

and east and west of

Highway 21 in the south

part of Settlement Area

147.9 38.5 New sewer on Bruce 25 Harbour Street




required.

4 North of Bruce 25 65.3 17.0 Ridge Street sewer Harbour Street




required.

12 Bricker Street 9.7 2.5 Local sewers Harbour Street None

14 Piper’s Glen 90.3 23.5 2009 MP recommends

pumping to WWTP -

No issues if directly discharged to

WWTP.

5 & 6 Trillium Drive and

Gedder Street 12.7 3.3 Local sewers Harbour Street None

8 & 9 Northfield Drive and

Reid’s Heritage Homes 118.8 30.9 High Street trunk sewer 10th Concession None

10 Vastag 29.3 7.6 Depends on arrangement

of development

10th Concession

unless directed to

WWTP

Possible issues if discharge is to

Tomlinson or Devenshire SPS’s.

Flows may depend on land use. Refer

to correspondence in Appendix A.

7 & 15 Concession 10 North and

east of Hwy. 21 30.5 8.0 Concession 10 sewer 10th Concession None

18 North Shore Road 12.0 3.1 Concession 10 or South

to North Shore Road

Either, or both, 10th

Concession or

Harbour St.

Local grinder pumps or small SPS

required. No issues at larger SPS’s

Total Area and Flow 597.3 155.4




Figure 5.2 presents the general features of probable sewer system extensions in the Port Elgin

service area.

5.4.3 Service to Developed, But Unserviced Areas

Areas 1 and 2 represent the largest developed, but unserviced areas in Saugeen Shores. There

are approximately 400 residential units in an area with dense tree cover and high water table.

Replacement of failed individual on-site sewage (septic) systems would be extremely difficult

and in some areas not possible.

The existing trunk sanitary sewer on Ridge Street, constructed in 2002, was sized to provide

outlet for these areas.

The provision of full sanitary servicing to this area is consistent with the Town’s Official Plan

and provincial planning documents. Servicing requirements have also been considered in the

2000 and 2009 Water and Sewer Master Plans. Servicing will address potential public health

and environmental issues related to use of septics. It will also foster economic development by

allowing and encouraging re-development of the existing properties.

Area 18 is also in this category. It is probable that there will be a combination of gravity sewers

and individual grinder pumps in this area. Wastewater flows will be to the Concession 10 SPS.

5.4.4 Service to the South Part of Port Elgin

The sanitary sewer outlet for most of the undeveloped and developed, but unserviced land in the

south part of Port Elgin is a trunk sewer on Ridge Street. It was constructed in 2002 and outlets

to Harbour Street at Izzard Avenue. For much of its length it is 525 mm dia. The Harbour Street

sewer is 450 mm dia. and has one manhole section that is the capacity constraint for the whole

trunk sewer.

Details of the sewer including capacity and location details are provided in Appendix B.

It has been determined that the Harbour Street sewer section immediately downstream of Izzard

Avenue has a capacity of 120 L/s. At the estimated per hectare peak flows, the future sewage

flow to this location would be approximately 112 L/s or 93% of capacity. Given that peak flow

estimates within any given sewer section could be ± 20%, it is possible that the Harbour Street

sewer will need to be increased in size prior to build out of the Settlement Area in the south part

of Port Elgin. It is premature to say it will or will not.

The probable cost to replace the 450 mm sewer on Harbour Street with 525 mm sewer

(approximately 215 m length) is $250,000 (2014$).

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

MATCH LINE 1Lake Huron

MATCH LINE 2

")

WastewaterTreatment Plant

FUTURE SPS FOR AREAS 1 AND 2LOCATION TBD

GODERICH STREET

BRICKER STREET

BRUCE STREET

HIGHLAND STREET

CONC

ESSIO

N10

HIGHWAY 21

JOHN

STON

AVEN

UE

SHIPLEY AVENUE

BRUCE ROAD 33

NORTH SHORE ROAD

BRUC

ERO

AD1 7

GUST

AVUS

STRE

ET

CONC

ESSIO

N 6

BRUC

E RO

AD 25

WELLINGTON STREET

51.5 ha

49.2 ha

9.9 ha

9.7 ha

90.3 ha

2.6 ha

10.1 ha

111.0 ha

29.3 ha

12.0 ha

17.7 ha

2

1

313

16

1112

4

14

6

5

7

8

9

10

18

15

65.3 ha

17

19

14.4 ha

17.4 ha13.6 ha

43.4 ha

12.8 ha

7.8 ha

47.1 ha

A

!( Sanitary Pumping StationMatch Line300mm350mm375mm400mm450mm525mm600mmProposed Trunk SewersPort Elgin Non-Sewered and/or Development AreaSouthampton Non-Sewered and/or Development Area

Lake Huron

BRUCE ROAD 33

SAUGEEN BEACH ROAD

CONC

ESSI

ON 4

MATCH LINE 2

29.3 ha

2


SEPT. 2014SCALE


5.2Port Elgin and Area Sewer System Extensions

0 500 1,000250 Metres

´




5.4.5 Service Outside Settlement Area

The possibility of future sewer servicing outside the settlement boundary, but inside the Study

Area, was also examined. The following was noted:

The existing trunk sewer on Ridge Street has surplus capacity for areas beyond the settlement

boundary (e.g. areas south of Area 3). Development proposals would need to be assessed on

a case by case basis.

Development beyond the current Settlement Boundary in the south part of Port Elgin will

almost certainly trigger a requirement to replace all, or part, of the sanitary sewer on Harbour

Street between Izzard Avenue and the SPS.

The area north of Bruce Road 17 (opposite Piper’s Glen) should discharge directly to the

WWTP as proposed for Piper’s Glen.

5.5 Sewage Pumping Station and Forcemains

5.5.1 General

There is a total of six SPS’s within the Port Elgin sanitary sewer system. Four of these serve

local drainage areas. Two of the six (Tomlinson and Devonshire) are scheduled for

decommissioning when gravity sewer outlets are provided.

The two largest SPS’s, both of which discharge directly to the WWTP headworks, are the

Harbour Street SPS and the 10th

Concession SPS.

5.5.2 Harbour Street SPS

The Harbour Street SPS, located near the corner of Green and Harbour Street, was commissioned

in 1989. It is equipped with three identical pumps with variable frequency drives (VFD’s). The

2009 Master Plan identified3 (Ref 3) the operating capacities to be:

One pump at 100% of full speed – 137 L/s

Two pumps at 100% of full speed – 214 L/s

Three pumps at 100% of full speed – 236 L/s

In effect, the firm capacity of the facility would be 214 L/s. Information in the 2009 Master Plan

indicated that all three pumps operated simultaneously for part of a day in March 2006. No

similar event has occurred since.

3 Table 3E of 2009 Master Plan




Drawdown testing was completed at the Harbour street SPS on October 15, 2014. The tests (see

notes in Appendix B) established that each pump, operating by itself, will pump approximately

119 L/s. Previous drawdown testing in 2006 had established the single pump rate of

approximately 137 L/s and a two pump rate of 214 L/s (56% more). These were the values

reported in the 2009 Master Plan. It is possible that impeller wear or debris accumulation in the

forcemain has reduced capacities.

On the basis that two pumps operating in parallel will discharge 150% of the single pump rate,

the firm capacity of the Harbour Street SPS is estimated to be 178 L/s at this time.

Until mid-January 2010, 100% of all sewage flows in Port Elgin were through the Harbour Street

SPS. A review of daily records from April and September 2013 and January 2014 has

established that it now pumps approximately 60% to 70% of the total flow. The higher

proportions occur in the wetter months (e.g. April) indicating slightly more extraneous flow in

the contributing sewers.

5.5.3 10th

Concession SPS

The 10th

Concession SPS went into service in January 2010. The facility is equipped with two

equally sized variable speed pumps.

One pump at 100% of full speed – 231 L/s

One pump at current maximum speed – 137 L/s

According to the Design Brief (Ref 11) for the facility, the design basis was to have two pumps

operating in parallel discharging 309 L/s. A third pump would provide standby. Limitations in

existing power supply infrastructure resulted in the initial installation consisting of two pumps

with one acting as standby and a maximum discharge rate of 231 L/s.

Currently the 10th

Concession SPS is pumping approximately 30% to 40% of the total

wastewater discharged to the Port Elgin WWTP.

5.5.4 Combined Pumping Capacity

The total firm pumping capacity is as follows:


10th

Concession SPS = 231 L/s

Total Firm Capacity = 409 L/s

= 35,338 m3/d

Therefore the combined SPS capacity is 210+% of current peak flows. Based on the relationship

developed in Section 5.3.2, which showed a Peak to Average Ratio of 4.5, the combined

pumping capacity would be adequate for an average day flow of approximately (35,338 ÷ 4.5)

7,853 m3/d, almost 145% of the estimated 2034 expected flows.




In conclusion, the combined capacity of the two major SPS’s is adequate for the growth expected

to 2034.

5.6 Wastewater Treatment Plant

5.6.1 Description

The Port Elgin WWTP operates under ECA No. 4186-8FFRDQ issued in 2011. Since the

preparation of the 2009 Master Plan, the plant Headworks have been substantially changed and

the air supply facilities (i.e. blowers) upgraded. The plant rated capacity remains at 6,455 m3/d

as an annual average flow. The 2009 Master Plan4 provided some of the following capacity

information for the individual unit processes.

Table 5.4

Port Elgin WWTP Unit Process Capacities

Unit Process Size/Capacity Comments

Headworks - Rated at a peak flow of

38,275 m3/d

- Constructed in 2011

Aeration Tanks

including Blower

Capacity

- Rated at an average annual flow of

6,455 m3/d

- Operating as an extended

aeration process

Final Clarifiers

- Rated at a maximum day flow of

22,850 m3/d based on solids

loading rate at 3,600 mg/L MLSS 1.

- Rating based on surface

overflow rate = 26,233 m3/d

as a peak flow

UV Disinfection - Rated at 18,720 m3/d

Effluent Outfall - Reported to be surcharging during

peak flows

- Currently the subject of a

Class EA

Biosolids Digester - 400 m

3 available in Stage 1 & 2

Digesters (267 m3 in Stage 1)

- See comments in Section

5.6.2 (b)

Biosolids Storage - 3,360 m3 available

- See comments in Section

5.6.2 (b)

Notes: 1. This rating was checked based on current Return Activated Sludge (RAS) rates of 126% of average

Inflow. Calculations are included in Appendix B.

4 Table 3G of 2009 Master Plan




5.6.2 Capacity Review

(a) Principal Treatment Units

The principal treatment unit processes are rated in the current ECA, for an annual average

daily flow of 6,455 m3/d. In addition, the final clarifiers have capacity for a maximum day

flow of 22,850 m3/d and a peak rate of 26,233 m

3/d, based on a design MLSS concentration

of 3,600 mg/L and existing RAS rates. The UV system has a reported hydraulic capacity of

18,720 m3/d.

A review of the 2011 to 2013 Annual Reports prepared by the Ontario Clean Water Agency

(OCWA), the plant Operating Authority, identified the following:

In 2011, the WWTP met all compliance limits for BOD5, TSS, TP and E. coli, but exceeded

objective criteria for TSS in December (18.0 mg/L vs. 15.0 mg/L). A process optimization

review (Ref 12) was undertaken.

In 2012, all compliance limits were met, but TSS concentrations exceeding objective criteria

continued from December 2011 into January and February 2012.

In 2013 all compliance and objective criteria were met. The highest monthly average for

TSS was 10.0 mg/L in November, indicating that optimization efforts have been successful.

In addition, a review of effluent ammonia concentrations established that the Port Elgin

WWTP provides significant nitrification (i.e. ammonia removal) even though there are

currently no effluent criteria for this.

Figures 5.3A, 5.3B and 5.3C show the relationship between expected flows and rated plant

capacities throughout the study period. We have presented the clarifier capacity based on

maximum day flows and solids loading rate. In our opinion, at current process operating

conditions (i.e. MLSS and RAS rates) the surface overflow rate and peak flows govern.

Figure 5.3A

Port Elgin WWTP – Average Flow vs Capacity




Figure 5.3B

Port Elgin WWTP – Maximum Day vs Capacity

Figure 5.3C

Port Elgin WWTP – Peak Flow vs Capacity

As proof of the substantial treatment capacity of the aeration and clarifier components at the Port

Elgin WWTP, the plant has operated through most of 2014 on a single treatment train.

(b) Biosolids Facilities

In addition to the principal treatment units, consideration was given to the effective capacity of

the biosolids digestion and storage facilities. The following information was extracted from the

2011 to 2013 Annual Operating Reports.




Table 5.5

Biosolids Production Data

Year

Wastewater

Treated

(1,000 m3)

Sludge Volume

(m3)

Biosolids to

Wastewater

Ratio

(m3/1000 m

3)

Biosolids

Density

(%)

2011 1,429.3 3,973 2.7 2.30

2012 1,195.0 4,808 4.0 2.26

2013 1,467.0 4,527 3.0 2.20

Weighted

Average 12.15 m

3/d 3.25 2.25

In addition to the above data, monthly process data summaries for the period January 2013 to

February 2014 (14 months) established the following average values:

Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) production = 28.2 m3/d

WAS concentration = 2.56%

Solids Retention Times (SRT) = 21.2 days

Mixed Liquor Solids - MLSS = 3,608 mg/L

- MLVSS = 2,741 mg/L

% Volatile Solids = 76%

MOE guidelines (Ref 13) identify the following design criteria for aerobic digestion facilities

Volatile solids loading ≤ 1.6 kg VS/m3 per day to first stage of aerobic digester

SRT ≥ 45 days in digester (including aeration system SRT).

Based on the current operational data the loading rates to the first stage of the Digester (267 m3)

are 2.04 kg VS/m3 per day (see Appendix B for calculations). This value exceeds recommended

values by almost 30%. When considering the entire digester volume (i.e. 400 m3) the loading is

reduced to 1.37 kg VS/m3●day.

The SRT of the digested biosolids in the Digester is currently approximately 35 days compared

to a 45 day design guideline recommendation. This is based on the mean of the input and output

volumes.

From the Digester, biosolids are transferred to the sludge holding facilities. MOE Guidelines

(Ref 13) recommend a minimum of 240 days of storage be provided. Based on a review of three

years of data, biosolids are typically land applied in April/May and October/November which is

closer to a six month cycle.

Based on the information in Table 5.5 the quantity of digested biosolids being produced and land

applied is approximately 3.25 m3 per 1000 m

3 of wastewater treated. At current average

wastewater flows of 3,735 m3/d (Table 5.1), the annual biosolids volume would be

approximately 4,360 m3 resulting in a retention time of about 280 days, exceeding Guideline

requirements.




Figure 5.4 shows the relationship between holding tank requirements and existing capacity. For

consideration purposes we have presented both the current operating six month (180 day)

requirement and the MOE Guideline 240 day recommended value.

Figure 5.4

Biosolids Storage – Required vs Available

Based on the above, as long as the biosolids can be land applied at approximately six month

cycles, the existing storage volume is adequate until near the end of the study period. Also, the

current solids concentrations for the stored biosolids remains relatively low (i.e. <2.5%). Any

increase in concentration that can be achieved through decanting or other means reduces the need

for an increased storage volume.

5.7 Odour Issues

From time to time there have been odour complaints regarding the Port Elgin WWTP. For 2012

and 2013 copies of the complaint reports were included with the Annual Report prepared by

OCWA. For 2014 (May to October), the reports were placed in a log of Odour Complaint

Investigation Records kept by the Town. For the three years of record, the number of complaints

ranged from a low of 15 in 2013 to almost 40 in 2012 and 2014. The calls originate from 3 to 6

properties west of the WWTP.

Currently the following observations are made in response to a call regarding odour.

Date and time

Precipitation

Temperature

Wind direction and speed

Barometric reading

Dew point




The Town has developed on Odour Management Plan, a copy of which is provided in

Appendix C. The issue is considered important but more of an operational consideration than

Master Plan subject.

5.8 Summary and Conclusions for Port Elgin Sewage

5.8.1 Summary

It is estimated that the Port Elgin sanitary sewage system is currently servicing an equivalent

population of approximately 9,970 (4,189 EHU’s). There are 479 properties in the Port Elgin

service area that are connected to municipal water, but not sewers. The majority of these are in

the southwest part of the community.

A comparison of existing flows to WWTP capacity is as follows:

Average Annual Flow = 3,735 m3/d actual vs 6,455 m

3/d capacity

5

Peak Flow Rate = 16,475 m3/d actual vs 18,720 m

3/d capacity

6

It is projected that the Port Elgin sanitary service area will increase from 4,189 EHU’s to

approximately 6,097 EHU’s by 2034. This assumes that the 479 currently unserviced properties

will be serviced within the 20 year period.

Based on the projected growth, average annual sewage flows will increase to approximately

5,426 m3/d which is 84% of plant capacity. Peak sewage flows will increase to approximately

24,000 m3/d which exceeds the capacity of the existing disinfection system and outfall, but is

within the theoretical capacity of the primary treatment components.

Analyses established that the existing aerobic digester is already theoretically undersized based

on criteria in the MOE Guidelines (Ref 13). Any performance problems associated with this are

off-set by the fact that digestion continues to occur in the sludge holding tank.

At this time we do not suggest expansion of the digester, although future modifications could be

triggered by:

Deterioration of digester performance (e.g. odour issues)

Energy considerations related to the digestion and storage process

A need to expand biosolids storage should six months capacity become an operational

problem

A change in the plant process triggered by a change in effluent quality criteria

5 Annual Average Capacity is a compliance criteria in the current ECA.

6 Peak Capacity is based on the UV system capacity. The limiting components are disinfection and the

outfall sewer.




In our opinion, any modifications to the biosolids system should be preceded by an investigation

of biosolids management alternatives that considers at least:

Long term disposal needs

Energy considerations

Potential regulatory changes

Similar issues at the Southampton WWTP

5.8.2 Risks

Other than the capacity of the UV disinfection system and the existing outfall sewer, there are no

apparent capacity issues within the study period for the primary treatment components at the Port

Elgin WWTP. Certain assumptions have been made regarding rates of development and where


reserve capacity that there will be ample opportunity to respond to growth that exceeds what is

projected in this Master Plan.



WWTP is the sum of the discharges from the two large SPS’s, and there is the capability of

exceeding the estimated value. Based on historical information, exceedances would be very

infrequent. As the service area expands risk will increase, but it is currently low.




(e.g. ammonia).

The first opportunity for the MOE to consider changes will be during the Class EA process for

the UV system and outfall currently underway.

We recommend that biosolids quantities and storage requirements be monitored on at least a five

year frequency. Should treatment or storage problems occur, then a formal biosolids

management study, including consideration of the Southampton WWTP, should be undertaken.

Biosolids storage capacity is less than the eight months recommended by the MOE Guidelines.

Should the Guideline values be enforced through regulation or other means, it will be necessary

to determine how biosolids should be managed going forward.

A review of the impact of future development and the potential connection of areas currently

without sanitary servicing (e.g. Gobels Grove) has established that the sections of existing

sanitary sewer on Harbour Street between Izzard Avenue and the Harbour Street SPS will be

within 7% of theoretical capacity at full development. Because flows could change, we

recommend re-assessment on a 5 year frequency or as the rate of development dictates.





The UV system at the Port Elgin WWTP will need to be re-rated or expanded by approximately

2018. The probable cost of a UV system expansion is between $200,000 and $300,000 (2014$).

It is noted that any physical expansion of the WWTP will be required to complete screening for

cultural heritage and archeological resources. Also any future extension of the sewage collection

system will need to consider impacts to heritage and archeological resources, as well as

alternatives to locating utilities in the Highway 21 corridor.

Subject to the following considerations, this study has not identified the need for other capital

projects related to the Port Elgin sanitary sewage system at this time.

Rates of growth and total development are approximately what has been estimated for this

analysis.

Per unit flows remain similar to current values.

Biosolids can continue to be land disposed on a 6 month cycle.

Process biosolids characteristics (e.g. solids concentrations, SRT’s) remain similar.

It is recommended that the performance of the biosolids system and quantities vs storage

capacity be monitored on at least a five year basis.




6.0 SOUTHAMPTON AREA SEWAGE SYSTEM

6.1 Description

An overall illustration of the Southampton sewage system is provided in Figure 6.1. Most of

the original system was constructed in 1972, including three SPS’s with forcemains and the

WWTP.

The WWTP is an extended aeration, activated sludge plant using two oxidation ditches, two

rectangular secondary clarifiers and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. Upgrades to the plant in

1996 included a new UV disinfection system and two additional clarifiers. Biosolids storage

and digestion facilities had previously been upgraded in 1992. In 2010, two replacement

aeration rotors were installed to improve oxygen transfer and overall sewage treatment. The

facility currently operates under Amended Certificate of Approval (now referred to as an

Environmental Compliance Approval or ECA) No. 3-1216-88-974, issued July 25, 1994

(Ref 14). The plant has an Annual Average Day Flow rating (i.e. Rated Capacity) of

3,042 m3/d and peak rated capacity of 6,084 m

3/d. The peak capacity is a compliance criteria.

The WWTP discharges treated effluent to the Saugeen River.

The sewage collection system now includes five SPS’s, three of which serve relatively local

areas throughout the community. Two of the stations, No. 1 and No. 5 are larger and discharge

directly to the WWTP. No. 5 which serves the area north of the Saugeen River went into

operation in 2010. No. 3 discharges into the forcemain from No. 1.


The 2009 Master Plan investigated sewage servicing requirements to 2028. The following

issues were identified7:

Peak sewage flows were expected to exceed the peak rated capacity of the WWTP (i.e.

6,084 m3/d) which would trigger a need for upgrades to:

- The WWTP headworks

- Final clarifier capacity

- The UV disinfection system

- Possibly a short section of the outfall

Prior to increasing clarifier capacity a stress test should be undertaken.

Sludge storage requirements should be reviewed every 5 years.

7 Genivar 2009 Master Plan Table 4F

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Lake Huron

")


CONCESSION 10

CUTTER ROAD

LINKS SIDEROAD

FENTONDRIVEBRUCE ROAD

N OR T H R A N K IN S T R E E T

SOUT

H ST

REET

H U R O N S T R E E T SO U THF R O N T S T R E E T

V IC TO R IA S T R E E T S O U T H

LAKE STREET

PEEL

STRE

ET

HIGHWAY 21

ISLAN

D ST

REET

CARLISLE STREET

COLE

BOUL

EVAR

D

SPEN

CE ST

REET


BRUC

E ROA

D 3

BREADALBANE STREET SOUTH

GREY STREET SOUTH


CONC

ESSI

ON 14

R A ILWAY STR EET

T Y E N D IN A G A D R IV E

DOLL SIDEROAD

LOUI

SA ST

REET

S A UG EE NS TR E ETSPS3

SPS2

SPS1SPS5

SPS4

!( Sanitary Pumping Station300mm350mm375mm400mm450mm525mm600mm685mmSewage Service Area

0 250 500125 Metres

´


OCT. 2014SCALE


6.1Existing Southampton Sewage System




6.3 Population Growth and Sewage Flows



urban area population growth is presented on Figure 3.1. It is assumed that 38% of the growth

will go to the Southampton service area. Within the Southampton sewer service area there are

currently approximately 257 properties that have municipal water supply, but no sewer service.

For purposes of assessing WWTP capacity requirements, we have assumed these properties will

be added as serviced customers during the 2014 to 2034 study period.

6.3.2 Existing Sewage Flows

Sewage flow data from 2011 to 2013 was used to determine the benchmark average day and

maximum day flow values for the Southampton sewage system. Values of 1,730 m3/d and

5,536 m3/d were calculated for average day and maximum day flow respectively. During this

period, average day flows did not exceed the rated capacity of the plant. Annual sewage flow

data for the Southampton WWTP from 2011 to 2013 is presented in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1

Southampton WWTP Sewage Flows

Year Sewage Flow (m

3/d)

Average Max. Day

2011 1,935 4,870

2012 1,370 2,128

2013 1,885 5,536

Average or Maximum 1,730 5,536

The total number of EHU's for wastewater, as presented in Section 3.2, was split 62% Port Elgin

and 38% Southampton based on the number of customers in each zone. This resulted in a total

of 2,567 EHU's (6,756 x 0.38) for Southampton. Application of these values results in an

average flow of 0.67 m3/EHU and a maximum day flow of 2.17 m

3/EHU. The values are

summarized in Table 6.2.

The total equivalent serviced population of the Southampton area was calculated from the total

EHU's and the average population density to be 6,109 persons (2,567 x 2.38). This value results

in 0.28 m3/d per capita for average day flow and 0.91 m

3/d per capita for maximum day flow. It

is assumed that these per capita sewage flows will remain constant for Southampton throughout

the entire 20 year study period.




Table 6.2

Existing Average and Maximum Day Sewage Flows (Southampton)

Total Number of Existing Equivalent Household Units (EHU’s) 2,567

Total Equivalent Serviced Population 6,109

Average Day Sewage Flow (2011 to 2013) 1,730 m3/d

Maximum Day Sewage Flow (April 2012) 5,536 m3/d

Average Day Sewage Flow per EHU 0.67 m3/d

Maximum Day Sewage Flow per EHU 2.17 m3/d

Average Day Sewage Flow per capita 0.28 m3/d

Maximum Day Sewage Flow per capita 0.91 m3/d

The 2009 Master Plan (Ref 3) estimated the peak flow to the Southampton WWTP be 97 L/s

based on detailed analysis of operating conditions at the pumping stations during a March 2006

peak flow event. No similar events have occurred since 2006.

All flows to the WWTP are pumped from SPS’s No. 1, No. 3 and No. 5. Therefore, the actual

peak flows would be a function of the pumps that are operating at each station. Flows are not

recorded on an instantaneous basis at the SPS’s.

To estimate the peak flows for projection purposes we proceeded as follows:

Determined the peak extraneous flow as the difference between the maximum daily flow

and the minimum daily flow in 2013.

Estimated the peak sewage component of the flow by applying the Harmon equation to

the minimum daily flow.

Available data is as follows:

Minimum daily flow 2013 = 964 m3

Maximum daily flow 2013 = 5,536 m3

Equivalent serviced population = 6,109 (EHU’s = 2,567)

Harmon peaking factor = 3.16

The analysis was as follows:

Peak Extraneous Flow = 5,536 m3/d – 964 m

3/d

= 4,572 m3/d

= 52.9 L/s

Peak Sewage Flow = 964 x 3.16

= 3,046 m3/d

= 35.3 L/s




Estimated Total Peak Flow = 52.9 L/S + 35.3 L/s

= 88.2 L/s

= 7,620 m3/d

= 2.98 m3/d say 3.0 m

3/d per EHU

The Southampton service area is currently approximately 567 ha. Therefore the peak extraneous

flow was approximately 0.09 L/s per ha. On the basis that 964 m3 represented the true sewage

flow, the equivalent per capita unit value would be approximately 0.158 m3/d (964 ÷ 6,109).

As discussed in Section 6.5, peak pumping capacity, as currently operated, is approximately:

SPS No. 1 55 L/s

SPS No. 3 18 L/s

SPS No. 5 10 L/s

Total 83 L/s

Therefore, peak flows are likely at or near the operating capacity of the pumping facilities as

they currently operate.

Based on the above analysis, the estimated ratio of peak flow to average flow using the flows per

EHU is 4.48 (3.0 ÷ 0.67), say 4.5.

6.3.3 Future Sewage Flows

Figure 3.3A identifies the expected growth in sewage EHU’s through the study period.

Servicing of existing developed, but currently unserviced, properties is included in the

projection. The projected number of EHU’s to be connected to the Southampton WWTP by

2034 is 3,709.

Realistically, unit sewage flows, both average and peak, will decline as the number of

connections increase. This is in part because modern sewers tend to have less leakage and also

because of the averaging effect on peaks. Therefore applying existing values to the growth

component is considered conservative.

Future (2034) sewage flows applicable to the Southampton WWTP have been determined as

follows:

Average Flow (2034)

No. of EHU’s = 3,709

Average Flow per EHU = 0.67 m3/d

2034 Average Day Flow = 3,079 x 0.67

= 2,485 m3/d

Maximum Day Flow (2034)

Maximum Day Flow per EHU = 2.17 m3/d

2034 Maximum Day Flow = 3,709 x 2.17

= 8,048 m3/d




Peak Flow (2034)

Peak Flow per EHU = 3.0 m3/d

2034 Peak Flow = 3,709 x 3.0

= 11,127 m3/d

= 129 L/s

6.4 Sewer Collection System

6.4.1 Existing Issues

No issues have been identified with respect to the existing collection system. The Town

continues to rehabilitate and replace sewers to reduce extraneous flows. The fact that extreme

peak flows observed in 2006 have not been replicated since is evidence of the benefits of the

ongoing efforts.

6.4.2 Extensions for New Development

As noted in Section 3.5, there are a number of existing developed but unserviced, and potential

future development areas within each community. Figure 3.4B identifies eight such areas in the

Southampton sewer service area and within the Settlement Area boundary.

Table 6.3 identifies for each area, the most likely sewer outlet and expected capacity issues, if

any. Capacities were checked based on the following design parameters:


EHU’s per ha = 13.6 ÷ 2.38 persons per EHU

= 5.71



= 17.13 m3/d

= 0.19 L/s say 0.20 L/s

It is important to note that some of the areas may require local pumping stations to address

topography issues.

Additional detail regarding the servicing of each area can be found in the 2009 Master Plan.

None of the proposed new development areas are large enough that a capacity issue results in

any of the trunk sanitary sewers. Regardless, many of the east-west sewers are relatively small

diameter and flow routings and capacities, and actual performance should be assessed for each

development proposal as it comes forward.

6.4.3 Extensions for Existing Developments

The only part of the Southampton service area developed but unserviced is the Miramichi Road

area in the southwest. The area is not large and no upgrades of the existing system are required

in order to allow service.




Table 6.3

Summary of Information for Future Sewers in Southampton Service Area

Area

No. Description

Area

(ha)

Peak Sewage

Flow (L/s) Probable Outlet SPS’s Affected Capacity Issues

A Miramichi Road Area 54.7 10.9 To trunk sewer on

Huron Street South SPS 1 and SPS 2 None expected

B

Peel Street /

McNab Street

15.3 3.1 Peel Street trunk sewer SPS 1 None expected

C

Island Street /

Bay Street

2.5 0.5 Local sewers to SPS 2 SPS 1 and SPS 2 None expected

D

South side of

Peel Street

28.3 5.7 Peel Street trunk sewer SPS 1 None expected

E

North side of

Peel Street

38.4 7.7 Peel Street trunk sewer SPS 1 Potential issues between Albert St. and

Huron St.

F South of Louise Street 11.7 2.3 Local sewers to SPS 3 SPS 3 In combination with other areas could

exceed capacity of SPS 3.

G

South side of Grenville /

High Streets

9.2 1.8 Local sewers to SPS 1 SPS 1 High St. and downstream trunk sewer

capacity should be confirmed when the

scale of development is confirmed.

H

North side of Grenville /

High Streets

12.7 2.5 Local sewers to SPS 1 SPS 1 High St. and downstream trunk sewer

capacity should be confirmed when the

scale of development is confirmed.

Total Area and Flow 172.8 34.5

Notes: 1. All or parts of Areas E, G, and H can flow to a new SPS location on Anglesia St. S. and be discharged directly to the WWTP.




Figure 6.2 presents the general features of probable sewer system extensions in the Southampton

service area.

6.4.4 Service Outside Settlement Area

The study area includes several areas adjacent to Southampton that are currently outside the

Settlement Area boundary. In general terms, these areas lie east and south of the current

community. They are extensive, comprising almost 1,500 ha.

In our opinion, it is not feasible to connect the majority of these areas to the existing sanitary

collection system. The preferred approach is to have wastewater in these areas pumped directly

to the WWTP. Ideally the sequence of development or servicing would start at the north and

proceed southerly. The specific location of pumping stations and trunk sewers is dependent on

the scale, location and sequence of actual development proposals.

6.5 Sewage Pumping Stations and Forcemains

6.5.1 General

There are a total of five SPS’s within the Southampton sanitary sewer system. Three of these

serve local drainage areas.

The two largest SPS’s, both of which discharge directly to or near the WWTP headworks, are

Nos. 1 and 5. SPS No. 5 went into service in 2010 and serves the area north of the Saugeen

River. In addition to the above, SPS No. 3 discharges into a common forcemain with SPS No. 1.

6.5.2 SPS No. 1

SPS No. 1 has two identical sewage pumps with VFD’s. The station is equipped with a backup

generator. Testing8 conducted at the time of the 2009 Master Plan determined that the pumps

were operating at a reduced speed and discharging approximately 55 L/s. Testing at the time

established that at full frequency (i.e. 60 Hz), the discharge would be 99 L/s. Although the

pumps are currently set to operate at 52 to 54 Hz, the capacity of this facility is considered to be

99 L/s. To accommodate new development it will be necessary that the pumps operate at higher

speeds. As noted in Table 6.3, the estimated total of all additional flow from extensions within

the settlement boundary is approximately 35 L/s. Based on current flow estimates, it is expected

that this increase can be accommodated at SPS No. 1 without a pump size increase. However, it

will be necessary to ensure SPS No. 1 operates at or near the maximum frequency on the VFD.

8 Genivar 2009 Master Plan Section 4.3, Pg 4-5 and 4-6

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MATC

H LIN

E 1

Lake Huron

")


!(SPS

FUTURE SPS FOR AREAS E,G,H

LOCATION TBD

DISCHARGETO WWTP

BRUCE ROAD

SOUT

H ST

REET

MORP

ETH

STRE

ET

PEEL

STR

EET

MCNABB STREET

CLAR

ENDO

N ST

REET

CARLISLE STREET

ALBERT STREET SOUTH


GREY STREET NORTH

BRUC

E RO

AD 3

LOUI

SA S

TREE

T

CONC

ESSI

ON 14

SAUGEEN STREET

HURON STREET SOUTHHARMER STREET


HIGH

STR

EET

ANGLESIA STREET SOUTHRAILWAY STREET

TYENDINAGA DRIVE

BLANCHFIELD ROAD

SOUTH RANKIN STREET

NORTH RANKIN STREET

HIGHWAY 21

MIRAMICHI BAY ROAD

54.7 ha

28.3 ha

15.3 ha

11.7 ha

36.4 ha 9.2 ha 12.7 ha

A

D

B

C

F

E G H

2.5 ha

SPS3

SPS2

SPS1SPS5

SPS4

!( Sanitary Pumping Station

Match Line

300mm

350mm

375mm

400mm

450mm

525mm

600mm

685mm

Proposed Trunk Sewers



Settlement Area Boundary

0 500 1,000250 Metres

´


OCT. 2014SCALE


6.2Southampton and Area Sewer System Extensions




6.5.3 SPS No. 3

SPS No. 3 located off Clarendon Street, between Grey and Victoria Streets is a small secondary

SPS that discharges directly to the forcemain between SPS No. 1 and the WWTP Headworks.

At the time of the 2009 Master Plan, it was determined that the submersible pumps were

discharging approximately 9 L/s. Currently one of the pumps has been replaced and another

replacement is available for installation. It is estimated the replacement pumps will discharge 18

to 20 L/s.

6.5.4 SPS No. 5

SPS No. 5 went into operation in 2010 and pumps wastewater directly to the WWTP. The

facility is equipped with two submersible sewage pumps, each rated at 48.4 L/s. Based on

available daily flow data, it is estimated the existing peak flows are less than 10 L/s.

6.6 Wastewater Treatment Plant

6.6.1 Description

The Southampton WWTP operates under ECA No. 3-1216-88-974 issued in 1994. No

modifications to the plant have occurred since the preparation of the 2009 Master Plan. The

Plant’s rated capacity remains at 3,042 m3/d as an annual average flow. The 2009 Master Plan

9

provided some of the following capacity information for the individual unit processes.

Table 6.4

Southampton WWTP Unit Process Capacities


Headworks - Rated at a peak flow of

10,627 m3/d (123 L/s)

- Exceeds current operating

capacity of SPS No. 1,

SPS No. 3 and SPS No. 5 but

not the potential capacity

Aeration Tanks

including Rotors

- Rated at an average annual flow of

3,042 m3/d

- Operating as an extended

aeration process

Final Clarifiers

- 4 clarifiers with 250 m2 total

surface area

- Peak flow capacity 3

= 9,250 m3/d

- Max. day capacity 4 = 6,300 m

3/d

- Peak capacity is based on

surface overflow rates

- Max. day capacity is based

on surface loading rates

UV Disinfection2 - Rated at 7,603 m

3/d (88 L/s) - From 2009 Master Plan

9 Genivar 2009 Master Plan – Section 4.5, Pg 4-14





Effluent Outfall2

- Rated at 160 L/s if 30 m is

upgraded

- Note: need to upgrade 30 m

section of outfall sewer 5

Biosolids Digester - 215 m

3 available in Stages 1 and 2

Digesters (143 m3 in Stage 1)

- See Section 6.6.2 (b)

Biosolids Storage - 1,288 m

2 available in four

compartments - See Section 6.6.2 (b)

Notes: 1 This rating was checked based on current Return Activated Sludge (RAS) rates of 202% of average

inflow

2 As per Section 4.5 of 2009 Master Plan

3 Based on MOE Guideline SOR = 37 m3/m2 per day

4 Based on MOE Guideline SLR = 170 kg MLSS/m2 per day

5 The outfall sewer is currently monitored by WWTP operators

6.6.2 Capacity Review

(a) Principal Treatment Units

The principal treatment unit processes are rated (based on the ECA) for an annual average daily

flow of 3,042 m3/d. In addition, the final clarifiers, based on MOE Guidelines (Ref 13), have

capacity for a maximum day flow of 6,300 m3/d and a peak rate of 9,250 m

3/d. These ratings

consider an operating MLSS concentration of 4,200 mg/L and existing return activated sludge

(RAS) rates. The UV system has a reported hydraulic capacity (peak flow) of 7,600 m3/d.

A review of the 2011 to 2013 Annual Reports prepared by the OCWA, the plant Operating

Authority, determined that the WWTP is consistently meeting its effluent quality objectives for

all parameters.

Figures 6.3A to 6.3C show the relationship between expected flows and plant component

capacities throughout the study period. We have shown the clarifier capacity based on maximum

day and peak flows. In our opinion, at current process operating conditions (i.e. MLSS and RAS

rates) the solids loading rate and maximum day flows will govern and be the limiting capacity.

Based on discussions with the plant operator, it is the position that the existing clarifiers can

handle sustained (i.e. maximum day) flows, up to approximately 7,800 m3/d. This opinion is

based on observed conditions in 2006 during a high flow event (refer to Section 6.3.2). A

procedure is in place to monitor conditions if and when flows exceed 7,500 m3/d.




Figure 6.3A

Southampton WWTP – Average Flow vs Capacity

Figure 6.3B

Southampton WWTP – Maximum Day vs Capacity

Figure 6.3C

Southampton WWTP – Peak Flow vs Capacity




In summary, although the Southampton WWTP has sufficient capacity on an average annual

flow basis, as defined by the existing ECA, for projected growth until at least 2034, there are

potential issues at projected peak and maximum day flows. Because problems would likely only

occur at sustained high flows, they may not be obvious at current conditions. Also, the

constraining capacities are theoretical values based on MOE Guidelines. Actual capacities may

differ. In fact, as noted, real capacities may be significantly more. Monitoring of conditions

during sustained high flow events is occurring.

b) Biosolids Facilities

In addition to the principal treatment units, consideration was given to the effective capacity of

the biosolids digestion and storage facilities. The following information was extracted from the

2011 to 2013 Annual Operating Reports.

Table 6.5

Sludge Production Data

Year

Wastewater

Treated

(1,000 m3)

Sludge Volume

(m3/year)

Sludge to

Wastewater

Ratio

(m3/1000 m

3)

Sludge Density

(%)

2011 7,072.7 1,312.2 1.9 3.92

2012 5,017.1 1,749.6 3.5 3.71

2013 6,872.2 1,814.4 2.6 3.15

Weighted

Average 4.45 m

3/d 2.7 3.56

In addition to the above data, monthly process data summaries for the period January 2013 to

February 2014 (14 months) established the following average values:

Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) production = 48.2 m3/d

WAS concentration = 1.22 %

Solids Retention Times (SRT) = 25.0 days

Mixed Liquor Solids - MLSS = 4,164 mg/L

- MLVSS = 2,810 mg/L

% Volatile Solids = 67.5 %

MOE guidelines (Ref 13) identify the following design criteria for aerobic digestion facilities:

Volatile solids loading ≤ 1.6 kg VS/m3 per day to first stage of aerobic digester.

SRT ≥ 45 days in digester (including aeration system SRT).

Based on the current operational data the loading rates to the first stage of the Digester (143 m3)

are approximately 2.78 kg VS/m3●day. This value exceeds recommended values by almost 75%.

Calculations are provided in Appendix B.




The SRT of the digested biosolids in the Digester is currently approximately 37 days compared

to a 45 day recommended design value.

From the Digester, biosolids are transferred to the sludge holding facilities. MOE Guidelines

(Ref 13) recommend a minimum of 240 days of storage be provided. Based on a review of three

years of data, biosolids are typically land applied in June to August and October/November

which is closer to a seven month cycle and sometimes longer.

Based on the information in Table 6.5 the quantity of digested biosolids being produced and land

applied is approximately 2.7 m3 per 1000 m

3 of wastewater treated. At current average

wastewater flows of 1,730 m3/d (Table 6.1), the annual biosolids volume would be

approximately 1,705 m3 resulting in a retention time of about 276 days, exceeding Guideline

requirements.

Figure 6.4 shows the relationship between holding tank requirements and existing capacity. For

consideration purposes we have presented both the six month (180 day) requirement and the

MOE Guideline 240 day recommended value.

Figure 6.4

Southampton WWTP Biosolids Storage – Required vs Available

Based on the above, as long as the biosolids can be land applied at approximately six or even

seven month cycles, the existing storage volume is adequate.




6.7 Summary and Conclusions for Southampton Sewage

6.7.1 Summary

It is estimated that the Southampton sanitary sewage system is currently servicing an equivalent

population of approximately 6,109 (2,567 EHU’s). There are 257 properties in the Southampton

service area that are connected to municipal water, but not sewers. The majority of these are in

the southwest part of the community.

A comparison of existing flows to WWTP capacity is as follows:

Average Annual Flow = 1,730 m3/d actual vs 3,042 m

3/d capacity

10

Maximum Day = 5,536 m3/d vs 6,300 m

3/d theoretical capacity

Peak Flow Rate = 7,620 m3/d actual vs 9,250 m

3/d capacity

11

It is projected that the Southampton sanitary service area will increase from 2,567 EHU’s to

approximately 3,709 EHU’s by 2034. This assumes that the 257 currently unserviced properties

will be serviced within the 20 year period.

Based on the projected growth, average annual sewage flows will increase to approximately

2,495 m3/d which is 82% of plant rated (as per ECA) capacity. Peak sewage flows will increase

to approximately 11,100 m3/d which exceeds the capacity of the existing headworks, clarifiers,

disinfection system and a portion of the outfall.

Based on maximum day flow projections, the solids loading capacity of the final clarifiers will

be exceeded by 2017 - 2018. Peak flow projections indicate the hydraulic capacity would be

exceeded by about 2024. In both categories the capacities are based on theoretical analyses and

comparison to MOE design guideline criteria and not necessarily actual performance. There is

evidence that the solids loading maximum day flow capacity may be as high as 7,800 m3/d at

current MLSS concentrations. Procedures are in place to monitor performance at sustained high

flows.

Analyses established that the existing aerobic digester is already theoretically undersized based

on criteria in the MOE Guidelines (Ref 13). Any performance problems associated with this are

likely off-set by the fact that digestion continues to occur in the sludge holding tank.

At this time we do not suggest expansion of the digester, although future modifications could be

triggered by:

Deterioration of digester performance (e.g. odour issues)

Energy considerations related to the digestion and storage process

A need to expand biosolids storage should existing capacity become an operational problem

A change in the plant process triggered by a change in effluent quality criteria

10

Annual Average Capacity is a compliance criteria in the current ECA. 11

Peak Capacity is based on MOE Guidelines. The limiting components are disinfection and the outfall

sewer. It is also a compliance criteria in the ECA. In the ECA the peak rate is 6,084 m3/d.




In our opinion, any modifications to the biosolids system should be preceded by an investigation

of biosolids management alternatives that considers at least:

Long term disposal needs

Energy considerations

Potential regulatory changes

Similar issues at the Port Elgin WWTP

The potential capacity issues at the WWTP relate only to maximum day and peak flows. It may

be feasible to reduce these by addressing infiltration and inflow issues within the collection

system. To do this requires on-going investigation and a commitment to maintenance and

sometimes replacement of sewer infrastructure.

6.7.2 Risks

Investigations have identified potential capacity issues at the Southampton WWTP within the

next two to four years. The issues relate to maximum day and peak flows and involve several

unit processes in the WWTP (i.e. clarification and disinfection). Also a short section of the

existing outfall may need to be upgraded.

It has also been determined that loadings to the aerobic digester exceed design guideline values.

As long as treated biosolids can be land disposed at current frequencies, there is adequate storage

capacity for at least 10 years.

Other than the capacity of the UV disinfection system, a section of the existing outfall sewer, and

the final clarifiers at maximum day flow; there are no apparent potential capacity issues until

near the end of the study period for the primary treatment components at the Southampton

WWTP. Certain assumptions have been made regarding rates of development and where


reserve capacity, in terms of average annual plant rating, that there will be ample opportunity to

respond to growth that exceeds what is projected in this Master Plan.



WWTP is the sum of the discharges from several SPS’s, and there is the possibility of exceeding

the estimated value. Based on historical information, exceedances would be very infrequent. As

the service area expands, risk increases, but it is currently low.




(e.g. ammonia).

The first opportunity for the MOE to consider changes would be if an application is made for an

ECA amendment to address the peak flow rating or disinfection/outfall. Given that no increase

in effluent loading is required, we believe a strong argument can be made for retaining the




existing effluent objectives, or alternatively negotiating criteria that are consistent with existing

performance.


Investigations have identified a number of potential capital projects and actions related to the

Southampton sewage system. These are summarized in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6

Southampton Sewage System Projects

Project or Activity Suggested Timing Probable Cost

(2014 $)

Investigations (e.g. CCTV, flow metering) to

reduce infiltration and inflow to the sewers On going effort

Annual Budget

Item

Increase speed of pumps at SPS No. 1 Subject to monitoring No cost

Expand or re-rate UV Disinfection and Outfall

(30 m±) 2015 $200,000

Clarifier expansion (subject to monitoring) 1

Subject to monitoring $925,000

Headworks modifications or expansion 2 2031

$100,000 to

$300,000 Notes

1. The theoretical capacity and the ECA rated capacity of the clarifiers will be reduced in 2017-2018. There needs

to be an on-going monitoring program.

2. Modern Headworks often incorporate mechanical screening and other features. Costs can vary substantially.

It is noted that any future physical expansion will require assessments for cultural heritage and

archeological resources. Additionally, any expansions of the collection system in the vicinity of

Highway 21 will also have to consider all alternatives to placing utilities in the Highway 21

corridor. Presently the MTO does not endorse or support utilities located in the Highway 21

corridor.

All of which is respectfully submitted.


Per ___________________________________

Andrew Garland, P. Eng.

Per ___________________________________

:hv Stephen D. Burns, P. Eng.




REFERENCES

1. Municipal Engineer’s Association, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, October

2000 as amended 2007 and 2011.

2. B. M. Ross and Associates Limited, Town of Saugeen Shores, Water and Sanitary Sewage

Servicing Master Plan, March 2000.

3. Genivar Consultants LP, Town of Saugeen Shores, Water and Sanitary Sewage Servicing

Master Plan, June 2009.

4. Hemson Consulting Ltd., Development Charges Amendment Study, June 2011.

5. The Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores, Official Plan (By-Law No. 90-2012),

December 2012.

6. B. M. Ross and Associated Limited, Town of Saugeen Shores Sanitary Sewage Master Plan

Update – Prepared as an Addendum to the town of Saugeen Shores Water and Sanitary

Sewage Servicing Master Plan as Revised March 13, 2000 and September 6, 2001.

7. The Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores, Municipal Drinking Water Licence No.

093-101, Issue 1, August 4, 2011.

8. The Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores, Drinking Water Works Permit No.

093-201, August 3, 2011

9. Ministry of the Environment, “Design Guidelines for Drinking Water Systems 2008”.

10. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Port Elgin Sewage Treatment Plant Certificate of

Approval No. 4186-8FFRDQ, April 7, 2011.

11. Henderson, Paddon & Associates Limited, Design Report Concession 10 Sanitary Sewers,

Forcemain and Sewage Pumping Station, Town of Saugeen Shores, November 2007.

12. Ontario Clean Water Agency, Investigation of High Effluent Ammonia at the Port Elgin

WPCP, November 26, 2011.

13. Ministry of the Environment, Design Guidelines for Sewage Works, 2008.

14. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Southampton Sewage Treatment Plant Certificate of

Approval No. 3-1216-88-974, July 25, 1994.

APPENDIX A

PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONSULTATION



MASTER PLAN UPDATE

NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT

THE PROJECT:

In 2009, the Town of Saugeen Shores completed a water supply and sanitary sewer services Master Plan for the

communities of Port Elgin and Southampton and surrounding areas, which identified a number of upgrades for

the municipal water and sewage systems over a 20-year planning period. An update to the Servicing Master

Plan is being undertaken at this time to incorporate: recent growth; information from the new Official Plan,

Water and Sewage Financial Plans and the revised Development Charges Bylaw; and servicing initiatives

implemented by the Town since completion of the Master Plan.

The Servicing Master Plan update process will involve a review of existing water supply and sanitary sewage

collection and treatment components and any changes which have been implemented since completion of the

Master Plan. Additionally, the update will review growth projections within the service area, in conjunction

with flow information, to predict infrastructure needs over a 20-year planning period. A technical review of

previously identified capital improvements will also be undertaken. Upon completion, the Master Plan update

will establish a plan for the implementation of any recommended projects.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS:

The Servicing Master Plan update is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal

Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) which is an approved process under the Environmental

Assessment Act. Master Plan projects incorporate Phases 1 & 2 of the Class EA process and also include

consultation with the general public, government review agencies and affected property owners.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:

Public consultation is a key component of this study. As a part of the consultation component of this

project, a public information meeting will be held during the course of the study. Details regarding the

public meeting will be provided in a future notice. Any comments collected will be maintained on file for

use during the project and may be included in project documentation. With the exception of personal

information, all comments will become part of the public record.

For further information on this project, or to review the Class EA process, please contact the consulting

engineers: B.M. Ross and Associates, 62 North Street, Goderich Ontario, N7A 2T4. Telephone (519) 524-

2641. Fax (519) 524-4403. Attention: Lisa Courtney, Environmental Planner. E-mail:

[email protected]

David Burnside, Engineering Services

Town of Saugeen Shores This Notice issued May 5, 2014

mailto:[email protected]

Z:\14007-Saugeen-Shores-Water_and_Sewer_Master_Plan_Update\WP\Master Plan\Appendix A\2-1400714Jun02-Agency Letter.docx

Date

Agency

RE: TOWN OF SAUGEEN SHORES

WATER AND SANITARY SERVICING

MASTER PLAN UPDATE

In 2009, the Town of Saugeen Shores completed a water supply and sanitary sewer services

Master Plan for the communities of Port Elgin and Southampton and surrounding areas, which identified

a number of upgrades for the municipal water and sewage systems over a 20-year planning period. An

update to the Servicing Master Plan is being undertaken at this time to incorporate: recent growth;

information from the new Official Plan, Water and Sewage Financial Plans and the revised Development

Charges Bylaw; and servicing initiatives implemented by the Town since completion of the previous

Master Plan.

The Servicing Master Plan update process will involve a review of existing water supply and

sanitary sewage collection and treatment components and any changes which have been implemented

since completion of the 2009 Master Plan. Additionally, the update will review growth projections within

the service area, in conjunction with flow information, to predict infrastructure needs over a 20-year

planning period. A technical review of previously identified capital improvements will also be

undertaken. Upon completion, the Master Plan update will establish a plan for the implementation of any

recommended projects.

The Servicing Master Plan update is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) which is an approved process under the

Environmental Assessment Act. Master Plan projects incorporate Phases 1 & 2 of the Class EA process

and also include consultation with the general public, government review agencies and affected property

owners. This correspondence is being issued to advise of the start of study investigations.

Your organization has been identified as possibly having an interest in the project and we are

soliciting your input. Please forward your response to our office by July 14, 2014. If you have any

questions or require further information, please contact the undersigned at 519-524-2641 or by e-mail at

[email protected].

Yours very truly


Per _________________________________

Lisa J. Courtney, M.Sc.

LC:hv Environmental Planner

c.c. David Burnside, Town of Saugeen Shores

File No. 14007




p. (519) 524-2641 f. (519) 524-4403

www.bmross.net

Z:\14007-Saugeen-Shores-Water_and_Sewer_Master_Plan_Update\WP\Master Plan\Appendix A\3-14007-14Jun02-

Agency List.docx



MASTER PLAN UPDATE

REVIEW AGENCY CIRCULATION LIST

REVIEW AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Ministry of the Environment (London)

- EA Coordinator – Bill Armstrong

Mandatory Contact

Ministry of Natural Resources (Midhurst)

Potential Impact on Natural Features

Ministry of Culture (Toronto)

Potential Impact to Heritage Features

Ministry of Transportation (London)

General Information

Bruce County

- Administration Department

- Planning & Development Department

General Information

Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority

Potential Impact on Natural Features

Z:\14007-Saugeen-Shores-Water_and_Sewer_Master_Plan_Update\WP\Master Plan\Appendix A\4-14007-14Jun02-Aboriginal Let.docx

Date

Aboriginal Community



MASTER PLAN UPDATE







Master Plan.



since completion of the Master Plan. Additionally, the update will review growth projections within the

service area, in conjunction with flow information, to predict infrastructure needs over a 20-year planning

period. A technical review of previously identified capital improvements will also be undertaken. Upon

completion, the 2009 Master Plan update will outline any further requirements for studies, such as

environmental assessment, and establish a plan for the implementation of any recommended projects.





owners. This correspondence is being issued to advise of the start of study investigations.

For your convenience, a response form is enclosed along with a self-addressed stamped envelope.

Please forward your response to our office by July 14, 2014. If you have any questions or require further

information, please contact the undersigned at 519-524-2641 or by e-mail at [email protected].

Yours very truly


Per _________________________________


Environmental Planner

LC:hv c.c. David Burnside, Town of Saugeen Shores

File No. 14007




p. (519) 524-2641 f. (519) 524-4403

www.bmross.net

Z:\14007-Saugeen-Shores-Water_and_Sewer_Master_Plan_Update\WP\Master Plan\Appendix A\5-14007-14Jun02-Aboriginal List.docx



MASTER PLAN UPDATE

ABORIGINAL AND MÉTIS CIRCULATION LIST

Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation

Chief Arlene Chegahno

R.R. #5

Wiarton, ON N0H 2T0

Cc: Doran Ritchie, SON

Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation

Chief Randall Kahgee

Hwy. 21, R.R. # 1

Southampton, ON N0H 2L0

Cc: Doran Ritchie, SON

Great Lakes Métis Council (formerly Grey-Owen Sound Métis Council)

Malcolm Dixon, President

380 9th Street East

Owen Sound, ON N4K 1P1

Historic Saugeen Métis

204 High Street, Box 1492

Southampton, ON N0H 2L0

Métis Nation of Ontario

500 Old St. Patrick St., Unit 3

Ottawa, ON K1N 9G4

Z:\14007-Saugeen-Shores-Water_and_Sewer_Master_Plan_Update\WP\Master Plan\Appendix A\6-14007-14Jun04-AbAff-NorthDevCan Let.docx

June 4, 2014

Aboriginal Affairs and

Northern Development Canada

10 Wellington Street, Room 1310

Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4



MASTER PLAN UPDATE







Master Plan.












owners. This correspondence is being issued to advise of the start of study investigations and ask for

assistance in identifying any First Nation and Métis communities that may have an interest in this project.




[email protected].

Yours very truly


Per _________________________________



File No. 14007




p. (519) 524-2641 f. (519) 524-4403

www.bmross.net

2


Z:\14007-Saugeen-Shores-Water_and_Sewer_Master_Plan_Update\WP\Master Plan\Appendix A\7-14007-14Jun04-MinAbAff Let.docx

June 4, 2014

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs

720 Bay Street, 4th Floor

Toronto, ON M5G 2K1



MASTER PLAN UPDATE







Master Plan.












owners. This correspondence is being issued to advise of the start of study investigations and ask for

assistance in identifying any First Nation and Métis communities that may have an interest in this project.




[email protected].

Yours very truly


Per _________________________________




File No. 14007




p. (519) 524-2641 f. (519) 524-4403

www.bmross.net

1

Lisa Courtney

From: Armstrong, Bill (ENE) <[email protected]>Sent: June 4, 2014 2:28 PMTo: Lisa CourtneySubject: RE: Saugeen Shores Master Plan Update

Much thanks Lisa…. Bill Armstrong W. Armstrong, MES Regional Environmental Planner Southwestern Region Ministry of the Environment 733 Exeter Road, London, On, N6E 1L3 (519) 873-5013 [email protected] From: Lisa Courtney [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: June 04, 2014 2:00 PM To: Armstrong, Bill (ENE) Subject: RE: Saugeen Shores Master Plan Update Hi Bill, I have attached the 2009 Master Plan – the digital copies we have been split into 4 four files for the main report and 7 files for the appendices. My next email will have all the appendix files. Let me know if you have any trouble with the files (I hope I don’t kill your inbox!) Cheers, Lisa J. Courtney, MSc. B. M. Ross and Associates Limited Engineers and Planners 62 North Street Goderich, ON N7A 2T4 Ph: (519) 524-2641 Fax: (519) 524-4403 [email protected] www.bmross.net

From: Armstrong, Bill (ENE) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: June 4, 2014 1:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Saugeen Shores Master Plan Update

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)





http://www.bmross.net



http://www.novapdf.com/

2

Hi Lisa…just received notice of the update…will advise if any specific MOE issues/concerns…for now, can we get a copy of the current master plan (electronic being preferred) as we do not seem to have anything on file….merci beaucoup…. Bill Armstrong W. Armstrong, MES Regional Environmental Planner Southwestern Region Ministry of the Environment 733 Exeter Road, London, On, N6E 1L3 (519) 873-5013 [email protected]




Ministry of Transportation Ministère des Transports Engineering Office Bureau du génie Corridor Management Section Section de gestion des couloirs routiers West Region Région de l’Ouest 659 Exeter Road 659, chemin Exeter London, Ontario N6E 1L3 London (Ontario) N6E 1L3 Telephone: (519) 873-4596 Téléphone: (519) 873-4596 Facsimile: (519) 873-4228 Télécopieur: (519) 873-4228 July 3, 2014 Ms. Lisa J. Courtney Environmental Planner BM Ross and Associates 62 North Street Goderich, Ontario N7A 2T4 Dear Ms. Courtney: RE: Town of Saugeen Shores

Water and Sanitary Servicing Master Plan Update Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has completed a review of the notice of study commencement for a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the Water and Sanitary Servicing Master Plan Update in the Town of Saugeen Shores. The following outlines our comments. MTO may have an interest in the Water and Sanitary Servicing Master Plan Update should it impact the Highway 21 corridor. MTO wishes to be circulated with updates and materials as the Class EA proceeds in order to review potential impacts to the Highway 21 corridor. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly,

Ken Teasdale Senior Project Manager Corridor Management Section

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

Culture Services Unit Programs and Services Branch 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Tel: 416 314 7145 Fax: 416 212 1802

Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport

Unité des services culturels Direction des programmes et des services 401, rue Bay, Bureau 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Tél: 416 314 7145 Téléc: 416 212 1802

July 14, 2014 (EMAIL ONLY) Lisa J. Courtney B.M. Ross and Associates Limited 62 North Street Goderich, ON N7A 2T4 E: [email protected]

MTCS file #: 0001554 Proponent: Town of Saugeen Shores Subject: Water and Sanitary Servicing Master Plan Update Location: Saugeen Shores, Bruce County, Ontario Dear Lisa J. Courtney:

Thank you for providing the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) with the Notice of Master Plan Update for your project. MTCS’s interest in this EA project relates to its mandate of protecting, conserving and preserving Ontario’s culture heritage, which includes:

Archaeological resources, including land-based and marine;

Built heritage resources, including bridges and monuments; and,

Cultural heritage landscapes. Under the EA process, the proponent is required to determine a project’s potential impact on cultural heritage resources. Please advise MTCS whether an archaeological assessment and/or a heritage impact assessment will be completed for your EA project, and provide them to MTCS before issuing a Notice of Completion. Realizing that this is a Master Plan, developing a preliminary inventory of known and potential cultural heritage resources within the study area can identify specific resources that may play a significant role in guiding the evaluation of alternatives for subsequent project-driven EAs. Aboriginal communities may have knowledge that can contribute to the identification of cultural heritage resources, and we suggest that any engagement with Aboriginal communities includes a discussion about known or potential cultural heritage resources that are of value to these communities. Archaeological Resources Your EA project may impact archaeological resources and you may screen the project with the MTCS Criteria for Evaluating Archaeological Potential to determine if an archaeological assessment is needed. MTCS archaeological sites data are available at [email protected]. If your EA project area exhibits archaeological potential, then an archaeological assessment (AA) by an Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) licensed archaeologist, who is responsible for submitting the report directly to MTCS for review, is recommended. Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes The attached MTCS checklist Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes helps determine whether your EA project may impact cultural heritage resources. The clerks for the Town of Saugeen Shores and Bruce County can provide information on property registered or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/archaeology/archaeology_assessments.shtml#a1


Please notify MTCS if archaeological resources are impacted by EA project work. All activities impacting archaeological resources must cease immediately, and a licensed archaeologist is required to carry out a determination of their nature and significance. If human remains are encountered, all activities must cease immediately and the local police be contacted as well as the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Consumer Services must be contacted. In situations where human remains are associated with archaeological resources, MTCS should also be notified to ensure that the site is not subject to unlicensed alterations which would be a contravention of the Ontario Heritage Act.

If your EA project will impact heritage resources, MTCS recommends that a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) be prepared by a qualified consultant. Our Ministry’s Info Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans outlines the scope of HIAs. Please send HIAs to MTCS for review, and make it available to local organizations or individuals who have expressed their interested in heritage. Environmental Assessment Reporting HIA and AA reports and their recommendations are to be addressed and incorporated into EA projects. If your screening has identified no known or potential cultural heritage resources, or no impacts to these resources, please include the completed checklists and supporting documentation in the EA report or file. MTCS is in no way liable if the information in the completed checklists is found to be inaccurate or incomplete. Thank-you for circulating MTCS on this project: please continue to do so through the EA process, and contact me for any questions or clarification. Sincerely, Joseph Muller Heritage Planner [email protected] Copied to: David Burnside, Town of Saugeen Shores

http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf

http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf

1

Lisa Courtney

From: Murray-Leung, Caelan <[email protected]>Sent: July 24, 2014 10:54 AMTo: [email protected]: Saugeen Shores Water and Sanitary Sewer Servicing Master Plan Update inquiryAttachments: image001.gif; image002.gif

Miss Courtney, It is to my knowledge that the Town of Saugeen Shores is currently in the mix in determining the best solution to addressing municipal water and sewage systems over a 20-year planning period. In recent council meetings, the idea of recoating the existing water towers for Port Elgin and Southampton have been in circulation as to whether a new tower would be more ideal as oppose to rehabilitating the existing ones. As this will be assessed in the Servicing Master Plan update, I was wondering if you would be able to tell me when the study is expected to be completed and made available to the public with the preferred suggestions. Thank you and have a good day, Caelan Murray-Leung Landmark Structures Office 905.319.7700, x284

[email protected] www.teamlandmark.com





http://www.teamlandmark.com


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 29, 2014

SAUGEEN SHORES UPDATING SERVICING MASTER PLAN

Town of Saugeen Shores, July 29, 2014– The Town of Saugeen Shores is working with B.M. Ross and Associates

Limited of Goderich to update a 2009 Water and Sanitary Servicing Master Plan for the urban areas of the Town.

This update to the 2009 Master Plan is being undertaken for several reasons. It is to incorporate recent

growth in Port Elgin and Southampton; new policies in the Town’s Official Plan; updates to the

Development Charges By-law, and Water and Sewage Financial Plans; and recently constructed water

and sanitary sewage projects. The update will also involve evaluating growth projections for the

municipality and assessing the impacts of that growth with respect to water and wastewater servicing.

A Public Information Centre is being planned to give residents an opportunity to participate in the update process.

Details regarding this meeting will be released at a future date. The Town is also consulting with government

review agencies and local First Nations and Métis communities.

The updated Servicing Master Plan will identify infrastructure needs over the next 20 years and outline a

plan for implementing future water and sanitary sewer projects. The update is expected to be

completed by the end of October, 2014.

# # #

If you would like more information about the Saugeen Shores Servicing Master Plan Update, please contact:

Dave Burnside, Engineering Services

Town of Saugeen Shores

[email protected]

519-832-2008

Steve Burns, Project Manager

B.M. Ross and Associates Limited

[email protected]

519-524-2641



1

Lisa Courtney

From: Steve Burns <[email protected]>Sent: November 5, 2014 8:29 AMTo: Lisa Courtney ([email protected])Subject: FW: Servicing Master Plan - Vastag Property

-----Original Message----- From: Dave Burnside [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:29 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Steve Burns; Stu Doyle; Lawrence Allison; Dave Burnside Subject: RE: Servicing Master Plan - Vastag Property Robert Good timing as the Master Plan is underway, staff have discussed with you possible servicing options for the property and Steve Burns (BM Ross) will look at the servicing with a fresh set of eyes. BM Ross is working on the draft document, the expectation is the draft document will first presented to Council then followed by two public sessions this fall. Since we last discussed in 2007/2008 the servicing of the Vastag property there has not been a substantial change in circumstances to relations to the various options available to service the property. The options that have been discussed/presented are the following: 1. The long term plan was the a gravity sanitary sewer outlet to Concession 10 SPS when other developments extended the "end of pipe" easterly towards Highway 21 on Concession 10. 2. An extension of the sanitary sewer easterly on Devonshire extending into the Vastag property though a Town owned block between 1129 and 1137 Wellington. This may be a viable option when Devonshire SPS is decommissioned after the sanitary sewer is extended from the west to Goderich by a another development. Depending on that Developer's timing it could be within 1 to 3 years. 3. As part of Easement Agreement to permit the Concession 10 SPS forcemain to pass through the Vastag lands, a stub was placed in the forcemain east of the Wellington and Tomlinson Drive intersection for the use of the Vastag development. Staff would like to commission the Tomlinson SPS but are aware that will not happen until a developer extends the sanitary collection system closer. You will be added to the mailing list for the project. Any questions/comments contact either Steve of myself. Thanks David Burnside Engineering Services



mailto:([email protected])




2

Town of Saugeen Shores 600 Tomlinson Drive P.O. Box 820 Port Elgin, ON N0H 2C0 Office 519-832-2008 ext. 123 Cell 519-385-2799 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: September-05-14 4:22 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Servicing Master Plan - Vastag Property Good-day Steve and Dave, I understand that the Town is updating its Servicing Master Plan. If possible I would like to be kept informed of the study progress (i.e. public consultation events etc.) by whatever means of public notification you are planning to use. Furthermore, I would like to be consulted with and provide input as a stakeholder in terms of overcoming servicing constraints to my property (Lot 10, Concession 10). Within the urban boundary I have roughly 45 acres of lands designated for future residential use (45 acres x 6 units / acre = ~ 270 residential units) plus roughly 25 acres of future business park uses. Will the study examine the notion of decommissioning the sanitary pumping station in the existing business park and tying this into the larger system via gravity? Thanks, Robert Vastag (613) 574-0999



mailto:[email protected];





MASTER PLAN UPDATE

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE

THE PROJECT:

In 2009, the Town of Saugeen Shores completed a water supply and sanitary sewer services Master Plan for the communities of Port Elgin and Southampton and surrounding areas. The plan identified a number of upgrades for the municipal water and sewage systems over a 20-year planning period. An update to the Servicing Master Plan is being undertaken at this time to incorporate: recent growth; information from the new Official Plan, Water and Sewage Financial Plans and the revised Development Charges Bylaw; and servicing initiatives implemented by the Town since completion of the previous Master Plan. The Servicing Master Plan update process will involve a review of existing water supply and sanitary sewage collection and treatment components and any changes which have been implemented since completion of the previous Master Plan. Additionally, the update will review growth projections within the service area and in conjunction with flow information, predict infrastructure needs over a 20-year planning period. A technical review of previously identified capital improvements will also be undertaken. Upon completion, the Master Plan update will establish a plan for the implementation of any recommended projects.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS:

The Servicing Master Plan update is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) which is an approved process under the Environmental Assessment Act. Master Plan projects incorporate Phases 1 & 2 of the Class EA process and also include consultation with the general public, government review agencies and affected property owners. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:

Public consultation is a key component of this study. A public open house and presentation is to be held to review population projections, identify issues and potential solutions with respect to water and sanitary sewer services and to provide interested parties an opportunity for input. Details regarding the date and location of the Public Open House are as follows:

Date: Monday, November 10, 2014 Time: Open House: 5:00 – 6:30 PM, Presentation at 5:30 PM Location: Council Chambers, 600 Tomlinson Drive, Port Elgin

For further information on this project, or to review the Master Plan process, please contact the consulting engineers: B.M. Ross and Associates: 62 North Street, Goderich, Ontario, N7A 2T4. Telephone: (519) 524-2641. Fax: (519) 524-4403. Lisa Courtney, Environmental Planner (e-mail: [email protected]). David Burnside, Engineering Services Town of Saugeen Shores This Notice issued October 22, 2014

1

Lisa Courtney

From: Duncan McCallum <[email protected]>Sent: October 29, 2014 5:15 PMTo: Lisa CourtneySubject: Re: water and sewer master plan - Saugeen Shores

hi Lisa Thanks – I’m looking forward to the meeting and hope to meet you. Dunc From: Lisa Courtney Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 4:00 PM To: Duncan McCallum Subject: RE: water and sewer master plan - Saugeen Shores Hello Duncan, I spoke with the lead engineer for the project and he plans to overview the history of Master Plans in Saugeen Shores, including the 2009 Master Plan, and also speak to the rationale for a new Master Plan (or what has changed since 2009). Then of course, he will cover the findings of this Master Plan process and the recommendations that will come out of it. Let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers, Lisa J. Courtney, MSc. B. M. Ross and Associates Limited Engineers and Planners 62 North Street Goderich, ON N7A 2T4 Ph: (519) 524-2641 Fax: (519) 524-4403 [email protected] www.bmross.net From: Duncan McCallum [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: October 23, 2014 3:47 PM To: Lisa Courtney Subject: Re: water and sewer master plan - Saugeen Shores thanks very much Lisa – all of the files have opened up ok. Can I assume that one of the things you will review at the public meeting is the list of recommended upgrades from the 2009 report and a summary of what recommended upgrades have been implemented to date. Then what are the recommended additions/deletions to the 2009 upgrade list as a result of changing population growth/servicing area since 2009. thanks







2

Dunc From: Lisa Courtney Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:48 PM To: Duncan McCallum Subject: RE: water and sewer master plan - Saugeen Shores Hello (again) Duncan, Here are the appendices for the 2009 Master Plan (7 pdf files attached). Please let me know if any the files give you trouble. Cheers, Lisa J. Courtney, MSc. B. M. Ross and Associates Limited Engineers and Planners 62 North Street Goderich, ON N7A 2T4 Ph: (519) 524-2641 Fax: (519) 524-4403 [email protected] www.bmross.net From: Duncan McCallum [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: October 23, 2014 1:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: water and sewer master plan - Saugeen Shores good afternoon Lisa I am looking forward to the public meeting on November 10 and in order to prepare myself would appreciate getting a copy of the 2009 Master Plan which you will be updating. I hope you can email me a copy or send hard copy to me at Box 258 Southampton ON N0H 2L0 thank you Dunc McCallum







1

Lisa Courtney

From: Lisa Courtney <[email protected]>Sent: November 5, 2014 9:08 AMTo: [email protected]: Saugeen Shores Master Plan Public MeetingAttachments: Master Plan Update Public Meeting Notice Ad 2014.pdf

Hi Robert, Please find attached the notice for a public meeting regarding the Saugeen Shores Master Plan. The public meeting will take place on Monday November 10, at Council Chambers (600 Tomlinson Drive, Port Elgin). There will be an open house from 5 PM to 6:30 PM with a presentation starting at 5:30 PM. Please let me know if you have any questions. Lisa J. Courtney, MSc. B. M. Ross and Associates Limited Engineers and Planners 62 North Street Goderich, ON N7A 2T4 Ph: (519) 524-2641 Fax: (519) 524-4403 [email protected] www.bmross.net









MASTER PLAN UPDATE

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING

November 10, 2014

5:30 P.M. to 7 P.M.

Questions and comments from those in attendance (approximately 15 members of the public):

Q. If the UV system is replaced, what would the cost be?

Study team response: Approximately $200,000.

Q. How will areas currently without servicing (existing development) be prioritized to

receive services? How are developed areas defined?

Study team response: Developed areas are defined in the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw. The

intent of the Master Plan is not to identify priorities for servicing; however the Master Plan study

did examine the impacts of servicing all existing developed areas and assumed that the areas

currently not serviced will be serviced in the future.

Q. Is the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Port Elgin sewage outfall looking at an

outfall closer to Southampton?

Town response: The EA is looking at an outfall to Mill Creek.

Q. Is the timing of the average peak directly related to the influx of people in the summer?

Study team response: For the water system, the maximum day use does occur in the summer.

Maximum sewage flows occur in the spring, which is related to the spring melt.

Q. Where did the population data come from?

Study team response: The population data came from the Census, however as the census does not

include seasonal residents, customer data from the water and sanitary sewer services was also

examined.

File No. 14007




p. (519) 524-2641 f. (519) 524-4403

www.bmross.net

2

Z:\14007-Saugeen-Shores-Water_and_Sewer_Master_Plan_Update\WP\Master Plan\Appendix A\22-

PM_Questions.docx

Q. Assuming the 10-year population forecast is correct, there doesn’t appear to be anything

alarming over the next 5-10 years.

Study team response: There are no major capital works required; however, there will be

maintenance work required.

Q. Any future expansions will be related mostly to growth, so could these be funded through

development charges?

Study team response: Yes. Costs associated to growth could be collected through development

charges.

Yours very truly


Per _________________________________

Lisa J. Courtney

Town of Saugeen Shores

Water and Sanitary Sewer Servicing

Master Plan

2014

Agenda:1. The history of master planning in Saugeen Shores.

2. The rationale for a new Master Plan.

3. The general approach.

4. The MEA Class EA Process.

5. Growth Projections.

6. Findings for Water Supply.

7. Findings for sewage servicing for Port Elgin area.

8. Findings for sewage servicing for Southampton area.

9. Summary

10. Next Steps

11. Questions

2

The History of Master Planning in Saugeen Shores:

• 1st Master Plan was completed in 1999.

• Updates occurred in:

• 2002 to address Water Treatment

• 2006 to address sewage pumping capacity in Port Elgin.

• 2nd Master Plan was completed in 2009.

• The current project is the 3rd Master Plan

3

The Rationale for a new Master Plan:

1. More experience with a single water treatment plant (i.e. since 2007)

2. New Official Plan adopted in 2012.

3. Development Charges Background Study completed in 2011.

4. There has been significant growth and development.

5. 10th Concession SPS went into operation in 2010.

6. Sewage Service north of River in 2010.

4

General approach:

• Reviewed background information re:

• Projected growth and development.

• Available lands for development.

• Water demands and wastewater flows.

• Wastewater treatment performance vs ECA.

• Capacities and sizing of major system components.

• Issued Initial Notice for Class EA.

• Contacted key stakeholders and agencies.

• Reviewed comments received.

• Determined per unit water demands and sewage flows.

• Projected flows to 2034 and compared to capacities.

5

General approach, Cont’d:

• Determined flows for each un-serviced area and compared to capacities.

• Reviewed results with Town staff

• Prepared draft Master Plan

• Hold Public Information Centre

• Review draft Report and public input with Council.

• Revise report as necessary and publish Notice of Completion.

• Review and respond to questions/comments.

6

Growth Projections:

• Information comes from 2011 Development Charges Background Study and Town customer data.

• Adjusted from 2011 to 2013 and 2031 to 2034 and rural/urban split.

• Current Urban Population = 16,600

• Population growth expected = 4800+

• No. of new residential units = 2100

7

Figure 3.1Forecasted Urban Population

8

Other servicing assumptions:

• Unit flows will remain the same.

• New non-residential development will be in the same proportion as now.

• Currently developed areas w/o sanitary service will be serviced by 2034.

• Growth will split:

• 62% to the Port Elgin Service Area

• 38% to the Southampton Service Area

9

Water Supply Infrastructure

1. Southampton WTP rated 18,000 m3/day (currently equipped for 12,500 m3/day).

2. Southampton Standpipe – 3,300 m3

(1,600 m3 requires pumping)

3. Port Elgin Standpipe – 340 m3

4. Port Elgin Reservoir – 5,000 m3

5. Two distribution zones.

10

Figure 4.1A

Inset Figure 4.1A and B

11

Figure 4.1B

12

Water Usage:

• Existing:

• Average Day = 5,350 m3/day

• Maximum day = 10,325 m3/day

Future (2034):

• Average Day = 6,920 m3/day

• Maximum day = 13,365 m3/day

13

Figure 4.4Water Supply vs Demand 2014 to 2034

14

Figure 4.5Water Storage Required

15

Watermain requirements:

• Examined system for:

• Peak flows and fire protection

• Impacts of future growth

• Conversion to a single pressure zone

• Used a WaterCAD® model to simulate and assess conditions.

16

Water System Findings:

• Additional membranes will be required by 2028 But no physical expansion of the WTP is required.

• Storage is adequate provided pumping capability at the Southampton Standpipe is retained.

• Additional watermains will be required for growth but no changes to existing are required.

• Operation as a single pressure zone is feasible and will improve pressures during peak and fire flow situations. Consideration should be given to:

• 13% of the system will have pressures > 700 kPa.

• Additional automation and possible pumping system modifications will be required.

17

Requirements to convert to One Pressure Zone

• Review age and material for watermains in critical areas.

• Assess benefit of improved fire protection.

• Confirm details and costs for physical changes:

• The need for PRV’s on individual services.

• Smaller duty pump to allow circulation at standpipe.

• SCADA revisions.

• Possible need for Standby Power.

18

Figure 4.7A

19

Figure 4.7B

20

Port Elgin Area Sanitary Infrastructure:

• WWTP rated (ECA) 6,455 m3/day

• 5 sewage pumping stations:

• 3 for local areas

• Harbour St. SPS for south PE area.

• Concession 10 SPS for north PE area.

21

Figure 5.1

22

Port Elgin WWTP Unit Processes

• An extended aeration activated sludge process

• Headworks – screening and grit removal - 2011

• Aeration tanks – diffused air aeration

• Final clarifiers (settling)

• Ultraviolet disinfection

• Outfall to Saugeen River (subject of current Class EA)

• Biosolids -- Aerobic Digester and Storage• --------------------------------------------------------------

• Plant has an annual average flow rating in ECA

• Each process component has a design rating.

23

Port Elgin WWTP Ratings:

• Headworks – 38,275 m3/day peak

• Aeration – 6,455 m3/day annual average

• Clarifiers – 22,850 m3/day maximum day

• – 26,233 m3/day peak

• UV Disinfection -- 18,720 m3/day peak

• Outfall – Currently the subject of study

• Biosolids Digester – loadings exceed theoretical capacity but are compensated by long duration storage.

• Biosolids Storage – adequate for 6 months storage to 2033 +/-

24

Figure 5.3APort Elgin WWTP–Average Flow vs Capacity

25

Figure 5.3BPort Elgin WWTP–Maximum Day vs Capacity

26

Figure 5.3CPort Elgin WWTP – Peak Flow vs Capacity

27

Port Elgin SPS’s


Concession 10 SPS = 231 L/s

Total capacity available = 409 L/s

2034 capacity required = 278 L/s

28

Port Elgin Area Sewage Summary

• There is adequate capacity to 2034 in all primary treatment components except the UV disinfection system.

• Plan on expanding or re-rating the UV system by 2018.

• Plant will be at 84% of rated capacity in 2034.

• Monitor Biosolids Digester performance and Biosolids Storage capacity at 5 year intervals.

• Assess the peak sewage flows into the Harbour St. sewer at 5 year intervals.

29

Figure 5.1

30

Southampton Area Sanitary Infrastructure:

• WWTP rated (ECA)

• 3042 m3/day for average annual.

• 6084 m3/day for peak flow.

• 5 sewage pumping stations:

• 3 for local areas

• SPS No. 1 for most of area S. of River

• SPS No. 5 for area north of River

31

Figure 6.1

32

Southampton WWTP Unit Processes

• An extended aeration activated sludge process

• Headworks – screening and grit removal

• Aeration tanks – Oxidation Ditches

• Final clarifiers (settling)

• Ultraviolet disinfection

• Outfall to Saugeen River

• Biosolids Aerobic Digester and Storage• --------------------------------------------------------------

• Plant has annual average and peak flow ratings in ECA

• Each process component has a design rating.

33

Southampton WWTP Ratings:

• Headworks – 10,627 m3/day - peak

• Aeration – 3,042 m3/day annual - average

• Clarifiers – 6,300 m3/day - maximum day

• UV Disinfection – 7,603 m3/day - peak

• Outfall – Currently the subject of monitoring

• Biosolids Digester – loadings exceed theoretical capacity but are compensated by long duration storage.

• Biosolids Storage – adequate for 6 months storage to 2034+

34

Figure 6.3ASouthampton WWTP – Average Flow vsCapacity

35

Figure 6.3BSouthampton WWTP – Maximum Day vsCapacity

36

Figure 6.3CSouthampton WWTP – Peak Flow vsCapacity

37

Southampton SPS’s

• Will need to increase the operating speed of the pumps in SPS No. 1.

• No other capacity issues with existing SPS’s.

• A new SPS will be required in the east part of Southampton if development proceeds.

38

Figure 6.2

39

Southampton Area Sewage Summary

• Existing peak flows already equal the capacity of the UV system.

• Existing peak flows already equal the theoretical and rated (ECA) capacity of the clarifiers. Monitoring is occuring.

• The WWTP Headworks requires expansion in 2031 +/-

• Plant will be at 82% of ECA rated average capacity in 2034.


40

Southampton Area Sewage Summary, Cont’d.

Recommended Actions:

• Continue investigating for sources of high flows and reduce as feasible.

• Monitor capacity of SPS 1 and increase speed if necessary.

• Proceed with an expansion or re-rating of the UV Disinfection system.

• Monitor the performance of the clarifiers at peak flows and plan to expand capacity if necessary.


41

Summary:• Growth and Development:

• 30% growth over the next 20 years

• 2100 units and 4800+ people by 2034.

• There is a need to address existing un-serviced development.

• Water Supply and Storage:

• No physical expansions required.

• Will need to increase filter capacity – more membranes.

• Watermain grid will be expanded with development

• Conversion to one pressure zone is an opportunity but requires further assessment.

42

Summary, Cont’d:

• Port Elgin Area Sewage• No major facility expansion required.

• UV System will need expansion by 2018 +/-

• Outfall at WWTP is subject of a current study.

• Recommend monitoring at 5 year intervals for:

• Biosolids treatment and storage facilities.

• Harbour Street trunk sewer

43

Summary, Cont’d:

• Southampton Area Sewage

• A pump speed increase at SPS 1 will be required – no cost.

• Expansion of the UV Disinfection system is required.

• Clarifier capacity must be monitored and expansion may be required prior to 2034.


44

QUESTIONS?

45

1

Lisa Courtney

From: Lisa Courtney <[email protected]>Sent: December 2, 2014 9:56 AMTo: [email protected]: Saugeen Shores Master PlanAttachments: 14007 14nov10 Public Meeting(Rev).pdf

Hi Doran, Hope all is well with you. I’ve attached the slides from the Public Information Centre regarding the Saugeen Shores Sanitary and Water Servicing Master Plan Update, for your information. At this time, our review of the existing sanitary and water infrastructure hasn’t identified the need for any capital projects over the next five years. Our recommendations in the Master Plan will essentially be monitoring as development in Southampton and Port Elgin continue. Feel free to call if you have any questions. Lisa J. Courtney, MSc. B. M. Ross and Associates Limited Engineers and Planners 62 North Street Goderich, ON N7A 2T4 Ph: (519) 524-2641 Fax: (519) 524-4403 [email protected] www.bmross.net







1

Lisa Courtney

From: Lisa Courtney <[email protected]>Sent: December 2, 2014 9:57 AMTo: [email protected]: Saugeen Shores Master PlanAttachments: 14007 14nov10 Public Meeting(Rev).pdf

Hello Audrey, Hope all is well with you. I’ve attached the slides from the Public Information Centre regarding the Saugeen Shores Sanitary and Water Servicing Master Plan Update. At this time, our review of the existing sanitary and water infrastructure hasn’t identified the need for any capital projects over the next five years. Our recommendations will essentially be monitoring as development in Southampton and Port Elgin continue. Feel free to call if you have any questions, Lisa J. Courtney, MSc. B. M. Ross and Associates Limited Engineers and Planners 62 North Street Goderich, ON N7A 2T4 Ph: (519) 524-2641 Fax: (519) 524-4403 [email protected] www.bmross.net







1

Lisa Courtney

From: Muller, Joseph (MTCS) <[email protected]>Sent: February 6, 2015 3:43 PMTo: Lisa CourtneySubject: RE: Town of Saugeen Shores Master Plan Update

Hello Lisa: Thank-you again for circulating this draft report to me, and acknowledging our comment letter in this document. I reiterate our first letter’s observation that there is value in compiling a preliminary inventory of cultural heritage resources as part of the master plan process, to identify any that may play a significant role in guiding the evaluation of alternatives for subsequent EAs. In addition, the original water treatment plan and related infrastructure were installed in the 1950s and 1970s (in Port Elgin and Southampton respectively), and the Wets in the 1960s and 1970s, before archaeological assessments were conducted as part of such projects. Because of the archaeological potential for the overall study area, the existing W-WW systems may have impacted archaeological sites, as may any future upgrades, expansions or extensions. Incorporating contingencies for potential impacts in the master plan is recommended in order to address these potential risks. Please contact me if you have any questions, or would like to discuss the file, and thank-you again for your assistance, Joe

Joseph Muller, RPP, MCIP

Heritage Planner Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Culture Division | Programs and Services Branch | Culture Services Unit

401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto, Ontario M7A 0A7

Tel. 416.314.7145 | Fax. 416.314.7175 From: Lisa Courtney [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: February 2, 2015 10:45 AM To: Muller, Joseph (MTCS) Subject: Town of Saugeen Shores Master Plan Update Hi Joseph, I have attached the draft Servicing Master Plan Update for Saugeen Shores for your review. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Cheers, Lisa J. Courtney, MSc. B. M. Ross and Associates Limited Engineers and Planners 62 North Street Goderich, ON N7A 2T4





2

Ph: (519) 524-2641 Fax: (519) 524-4403 [email protected] www.bmross.net

From: Muller, Joseph (MTCS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November 13, 2014 10:12 AM To: Lisa Courtney Subject: RE: Notice of Public Open House - November 10, 2014 - Town of Saugeen Shores Master Plan Update Thanks Lisa, much appreciated. I’ve had a look and don’t have any further input other than to reiterate our initial letter, and request that I keep getting circulated on the project. Take care, Joe




Tel. 416.314.7145 | Fax. 416.314.7175 From: Lisa Courtney [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November 13, 2014 9:05 AM To: Muller, Joseph (MTCS) Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Notice of Public Open House - November 10, 2014 - Town of Saugeen Shores Master Plan Update Hi Joe, Please find attached the presentation slides from the public meeting. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Lisa J. Courtney, MSc. B. M. Ross and Associates Limited Engineers and Planners 62 North Street Goderich, ON N7A 2T4 Ph: (519) 524-2641 Fax: (519) 524-4403 [email protected] www.bmross.net

From: Muller, Joseph (MTCS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November 12, 2014 3:21 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Notice of Public Open House - November 10, 2014 - Town of Saugeen Shores Master Plan Update













3

Hello Lisa Courtney: Thank-you for your notice of the above open house held on November 10, 2014: I was unable to attend, and am interested in whether the presentation/panel materials will be available online, or if could I otherwise obtain digital copies? Thank-you for your assistance, Joe




Tel. 416.314.7145 | Fax. 416.314.7175



Ministry of Transportation Ministère des Transports Engineering Office Bureau du génie Corridor Management Section Section de gestion des couloirs routiers West Region Région de l’Ouest 659 Exeter Road 659, chemin Exeter London, Ontario N6E 1L3 London (Ontario) N6E 1L3 Telephone: (519) 873-4596 Téléphone: (519) 873-4596 Facsimile: (519) 873-4228 Télécopieur: (519) 873-4228 February 18, 2015 Ms. Lisa J. Courtney Environmental Planner BM Ross and Associates 62 North Street Goderich, Ontario N7A 2T4 Dear Ms. Courtney: RE: Town of Saugeen Shores

Water and Sanitary Sewer Servicing Master Plan – 2014 Draft Report The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has completed a review of the Water and Sanitary Sewer Servicing Master Plan – 2014 Draft Report for the Town of Saugeen Shores. The following outlines our comments. In general terms, MTO has no concerns with the overall findings of the draft report. However, MTO does note the following. The draft report provides for proposed trunk sewers along the Highway 21 corridor (both north and south of the existing connecting link limits within Port Elgin) and a proposed trunk watermain along the Highway 21 corridor (south of the existing connecting link limit within Port Elgin). MTO will require that as part of the Class EA process that all viable alternatives (i.e. easements, other road allowances, trail corridors, etc.) be reviewed and considered for the placement of these utilities outside the Highway 21 property limits. MTO does not, at this time, support or endorse the placement of these utilities within the Highway 21 corridor as illustrated in the draft report. Therefore, MTO suggests that the draft report make reference to the above in its Summary and Conclusions. I trust this above is of assistance in finalizing the report. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly,

Ken Teasdale Senior Project Manager Corridor Management Section

APPENDIX B

CALCULATIONS FOR MASTER PLAN

Contents

Subject Page

1. Growth Projections C-1

2. Sewer Capacity at South End of Port Elgin C-4

3. Harbour St. STS Drawdown Test C-6

4. Port Elgin WWTP Clarifier Capacity C-10

5. Southampton WWTP Clarifier Capacity C-11

6. Port Elgin WWTP Biosolids Capacity C-12

7. Southampton WWTP Biosolids Capacity C-14

C-1

1.0 GROWTH PROJECTIONS

1.1 Population

The initial source of population information is the Hemson Development Charges

Amendment Study, Appendix A, Table A.1.

For all of Saugeen Shores:

2010 Census Population = 12,660

Total Private Dwellings = 7,178

Total Occupied Dwellings = 5,321 (at census)

The population per dwelling = 12,660 ÷ 5,321 = 2.38 ppd

Total population 2010 = 7,178 x 2.38

= 17,080

Residential development 2011 to 2013 = 299 units. Therefore the total residential

development in Saugeen Shores at the beginning of 2014 was 7,477 units.

Total population 2014 (beginning of year) = 17,080 + (2.38 x 299)

= 17,790

Assume the population of the urban area is equal to the number of residential water customers

(6,970 for 2014) x 2.38 ppd.

Urban Population = 6,970 x 2.38

= 16,590

1.2 Residential

The initial forecasts for growth and development were from the Hemson 2011 Development

Charges Amendment Study, Appendix A, Table A.7. In that document, the following was

projected:

Year Singles/

Semis

Other

Multiples Apartments

Total Units

Per Year

2011 to 2020 82 20 8 110

2021 to 2031 68 16 6 90

Total 1,568 376 146 2,090

The relationship between residential development and EHU’s is:

Singles/Semis/Multiples = 1 EHU

Apartments = 0.5 EHU

C-2

1.3 Non-Residential

The split between residential and non-residential development comes from a spreadsheet

provided by the Town of Saugeen Shores - “Water Sewer Rate Calculation – 2014.xlsx”.

Results are expressed in Equivalent Household Units (EHUS’s).

For Water Supply: Residential EHU’s = 6,645

Non-Residential EHU’s = 1,108

Total EHU’s = 7,753

Therefore for every water supply residential EHU there is 0.17 non-residential EHU.

For Sanitary Service: Residential EHU’s = 5,941

Non-Residential EHU’s = 815

Total EHU’s = 6,756

Therefore for every sanitary service residential EHU there is 0.14 non-residential EHU.

1.4 Service Area Split

Service Area Water Customers Sewer Customers

No. % No. %

Port Elgin Area 4,242 62 3,783 62

Southampton Area 2,607 38 2,350 38

Total 6,849 100 6,133 100

Note: data comes from municipal records for 2014.

1.5 Equivalent Household Units – 2014 to 2034

From Section 1.4 it has been identified that there are 716 more water customers then sewer

customers. These are divided as follows:

Port Elgin Service Area = 459

Southampton Service Area = 257

= 716

For capacity assessments, it is assumed that over the next 20 years all existing water

customers will acquire sanitary service

Table C1.1 provides a summary of the projected EHU’s for water and wastewater service for

both service areas.

C-3

Table C1.1

Growth in EHU’s from 2014 to 2034

C-4

2.0 SEWER CAPACITY AT SOUTH END OF PORT ELGIN

2.1 Background

The Ridge Street sanitary sewer which outlets through Izzard and Harbour Streets to the

Harbour St. SPS, constructed in 2002, is the principal outlet for the south part of Port Elgin.

Figure C2.1 shows the location of this sewer and Table C2.1 summarizes the capacity of the

sewer sections flowing full.

2.2 Wastewater Flows

Existing wastewater flows for the Port Elgin Service Area were developed and summarized in

Section 5.3.2 of the Master Plan. Proposed design flows for servicing new development and

developed, but unserviced, areas were presented in Section 5.3.3. The following are the flows

used for analysis.


EHU’s per ha = 13.6/2.38 persons per EHU

= 5.71



= 22.46 m3/d

= 0.26 L/s

Table C2.1

Street From MH To MH

Dia.

(mm)

Capacity

(L/s)

Maximum

Area (ha)1

Ridge Street 5523 5511 450 162 623

Ridge Street 5511 5509 450 168 646

Ridge Street 5509 5516 525 162 623

Ridge Street 5516 5519 525 141 542

Ridge Street 5519 5564 525 170 654

Pierson Ave. 5564 5521 525 253 973

Easement 5521 5522 525 254 977

Izzard Road 5522 5924 525 >300 >1154

Izzard Road 5924 5927 525 262 1008

Izzard Ave. 5927 5473 525 462 1777

Harbour St. 5473 5952 450 120 462

Harbour St. 5952 5953 450 171 658

Notes: 1. Peak flow per ha = 0.26 L/s.

2. Not all MH's indicated.

Sewer Location

Saugeen Shores Master Plan

Capacity Summary for Ridge/Izzard/Harbour Street Sewer

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Lake Huron HARBOURSTREET SPS

450450 525 525

250

375

300

525

525525

250

525

450SHIPLEY AVENUE IZZARD ROAD

GR

EE

N S

TR

EE

T

IVIN

GS

DR

IVE

HARBOUR STREET

RIDGE STREET

JOH

NS

TO

N A

VE

NU

E

KAAKE STREET

BRUCE STREET

PR

OV

INC

IAL

ST

RE

ET

SU

NS

ET

BO

ULE

VA

RD

BU

CK

BY

LA

NE

PE

IRS

ON

AV

EN

UE

STICKEL STREET

PARKVIEW AVENUE

BLU

EW

ATE

R D

RIV

E

HILLCREST DRIVE

GU

STA

VU

S S

TR

EE

T

CAT

HE

RIN

E S

TR

EE

T

WALES DRIVE

55085509551055115512

551355145515 5516

5517

5518

5519

5520

55215522

5523 5464

5473

5477

5486

5487

5489

5490

5924 59255926

5927

5928

5929

5930

5952 5953

6410

6407

5364

0 50 10025 Metres

´


OCT. 2014

SCALE1 : 6,000


C 2.1South Port Elgin Trunk Sewer

Legend

Diameter (mm)525

Manhole and Number5509 !(

C-6

2.3 Discussion and Analysis

Currently the connected drainage area upstream of Harbour St. is approximately 140 ha. The

total developed but unserviced areas and future development areas upstream of Harbour St.

are an additional 290 ha.

The sewer section with the lowest capacity is the section on Harbour St. between MH’s 5473

and 5952 (i.e. 1st section north of Izzard Avenue). The following analysis compares available

capacity to existing and future conditions:

Existing capacity = 120 L/s

Existing flows (140 ha x 0.26 L/s per ha) = 36.4 L/s

Future flows (430 ha x 0.26 L/s per ha) = 112 L/s

Therefore, there is marginally adequate capacity assuming that future unit flows are equal to

or less than existing values. In this regard we note that development densities in the existing

developed but unserviced areas (e.g. Gobels Grove and Saugeen Shore Road have < 4 units

per ha). Therefore the above calculation should be conservative.

3.0 HARBOUR STREET SEWAGE PUMPING STATION

Drawdown tests for the Harbour St. SPS were completed by OCWA and Town staff on

October 15, 2014. Results are as follows:

C-9

Test #2; Two-Pump (P1&3)

Filling:

Elapsed Time Waterlevel

(m. below Drawdown/Fill Drawdown/Fill Inflow

(minutes) grating) (m) (m3) (L/s)

38.00 3.07

48.00 2.52 0.55 35.05 58.4

61.00 1.77 1.30 82.84 60.0

Pumping:


(m. below Drawdown/Fill Drawdown/Fill Net Outflow


64.50 1.69

72.00 2.79 -1.10 -70.09 155.8

75.00 3.21 -1.52 -96.85 153.7

Pump discharge rate = Net Outflow + Inflow = 213.8 L/s

Test #3; Three-Pump Operation

Filling:


(m. below Drawdown/Fill Drawdown/Fill Inflow


80.00 3.06

92.00 2.40 0.66 42.06 58.4

103.00 1.78 1.28 81.56 59.1

Pumping:


(m. below Drawdown/Fill Drawdown/Fill Net Outflow


108.75 1.84

113.00 2.56 -0.72 -45.88 179.9

116.00 3.05 -1.21 -77.10 177.2

Pump discharge rate = Net Outflow + Inflow = 236.3 L/s

C-10

4.0 PORT ELGIN WWTP CLARIFIER CAPACITY

4.1 Design Criteria

From MOE Design Guidelines for Sewage Works-2008

Surface Overflow Rate < = 401.

m/d

Peak Daily2.

Solids Load (kg/(m2•d)) < = 170

1. (SLR)

Notes: 1. Value for Extended Aeration Process with chemical addition and TP objective = 1.0 mg/L

2. Peak Daily = Maximum Day Flow

4.2 Background Information for PE WWTP

Clarifier surface area = 709 m2 (2 @ 21.25 m dia.)

Average Day Q = 3,735 m3/d (2011-2013)

Maximum Day Q = 10,212 m3/d (2011-2013)

Peak Rate = 16,476 m3/d (calculated for 2014)

MLSS = 3,608 mg/L (Jan 13 to Feb 14)

Return Activated Sludge (RAS) Q = 4,709 m3/d (Jan 13 to Feb 14)

4.3 Calculations

a) Surface Overflow Rate

SOR (Actual) = 16,476 m3/d = 23.2 m/d

709 m2

SOR Capacity = 709 x 40 = 28,360 m3/d

SOR at 37 m/d = 709 x 37 = 26,233 m3/d (if effluent TP objective < 1.0 mg/L)

b) Solids Loading Rate

SLR (Actual) = 3.608 (10,212 + 4,706)

709

= 76 kg/m2•d < 170

SLR (Capacity) = Area x 170 kg/m3•d at QMD

Where:

QMD = 10,212 3,375 = 2.73 x QAVG

RASQ = 4,709 3,375 = 1.26 x QAVG

Loading = MLSS x (QMD + RASQ)

= 3,608 x (2.73QAVG + 1.26 QAVG) x 10-3

= 14.396 x QAVG kg/m2

C-11

QAVG = 709 m2 x 170 kg/m

2

14.396

= 8,372 m3/d

QMD = 8,372 x 2.73

= 22,856 m3/d

4.4 Capacity Summary

The existing final clarifiers have capacity for

26,233 m3/d at Peak Flow

22,856 m3/d at Maximum Day Flow

5.0 SOUTHAMPTON WWTP CLARIFIER CAPACITY

5.1 Design Criteria

From MOE Design Guidelines for Sewage Works-2008

Surface Overflow Rate < = 371.

m/d

Peak Daily2.

Solids Load (kg/(m2•d)) < = 170

1. (SLR)

Notes: 1. Value for Extended Aeration Process with chemical addition and TP objective = 0.5 mg/L

2. Peak Daily = Maximum Day Flow

5.2 Background Information for PE WWTP

Clarifier surface area = 250 m2 (4 @ 14.6 m x 4.3 m )

Average Day Q = 1,730 m3/d (2011-2013)

Maximum Day Q = 5,536 m3/d (2011-2013)

Peak Rate = 7,620 m3/d (calculated for 2014)

MLSS = 4,164 mg/L (Jan 13 to Feb 14)

Return Activated Sludge (RAS) Q = 3,420 m3/d

5.3 Calculations

a) Surface Overflow Rate

SOR (Actual) = 7,620 m3/d = 30.5 m/d < 37

250 m2

SOR Capacity = 250 x 37 = 9,250 m3/d

C-12

b) Solids Loading Rate

SLR (Actual) = 4.164 (5,536 + 3,420)

250

= 149 kg/m2•d < 170

SLR (Capacity) = Area x 170 kg/m3•d at QMD

Where:

QMD = 5,536 1,730 = 3.2 x QAVG

RASQ = 3,420 1,730 = 1.98 x QAVG

Loading = MLSS x (QMD + RASQ)

= 4,164 x (3.2 QAVG + 1.98 QAVG) x 10-3

= 21.570 x QAVG kg/m2

QAVG = 250 m2 x 170 kg/m

2

21.570

= 1,970 m3/d

QMD = 1,970 x 3.2

= 6,300 m3/d

5.4 Capacity Summary

The existing final clarifiers have capacity for

9,250 m3/d at Peak Flow

6,300 m3/d at Maximum Day Flow

6.0 PORT ELGIN WWTP BIOSOLIDS CAPACITY

6.1 Design Criteria

From MOE Design Guidelines for Sewage Works – 2008

Solids Retention in Aeration and Digester ≥ 45 days

Loading to 1st Stage ≤ 1.6 kgVS/m

3•d

Total Storage ≥ 240 days

6.2 Existing Facilities

Digester Volume = 267 m3 1

st Stage

133 2nd

Stage

400 m3

Total

Storage = 3,360 m3

C-13

6.3 Existing Process and Production Data

Table C6.1

Biosolids Process Data

Year Month RAS WAS SRT MLSS MLVSS % VS

(m3/day) % (m

3/day) (mg/L) (d) (mg/l) (mg/l)

2013 Jan 5184 174 32 39156 12.4 3950 2889 73

Feb 5552 157 35 28452 15.9 3913 3136 80

Mar 5473 138 41 24050 14.4 3655 2668 73

Apr 5564 89 31 30128 12.5 3041 2452 81

May 4999 91 26 30363 15.3 3046 2354 77

Jun 3932 94 23 26587 24.3 3848 2930 76

Jul 4850 142 25 17679 33.3 3847 2599 68

Aug 5409 164 26 18862 25.9 3336 2465 74

Sep 4670 141 26 24995 15.4 2568 1884 73

Oct 5466 196 25 21838 23.4 3308 2450 74

Nov 4689 113 14 21899 35.6 3058 2147 70

Dec 4500 90 26 28768 13.6 2604 2018 77

2014 Jan 2928 86 34 25939 27.8 6147 4802 78

Feb 2715 87 30 20024 27.4 4197 3581 85

Averages 4709 126 28 25624 21.2 3608 2741 76

Table C6.2


Year Volumes (m3) Rel %

Sewage Sludge (m3/m

3) Solids

2011 1,429,340 3,973 0.0027 2.30

2012 1,195,010 4,808 0.0040 2.26

2013 1,466,971 4,527 0.0031 2.20

Weighted

Average

0.00325 2.25

6.4 Calculations

a) 1st Stage Loading

WAS Load = 28 m3/d x 2.56 % solids x 76 % Volatile

= 545 kg VS/d

Loading = 545 kg VS/d ÷ 267 m3

= 2.04 kg/m3•d > 1.6

C-14

b) Solids Retention Time

SRT = SRT AERATION + SRT DIGESTER

Where:

SRT DIGESTER ≥ 400 m3 ÷ 28 m3/d

≥ 14.3 d

SRT AERATION = 21.2 days (see Table C6.1)

Therefore:

SRT =21.2 + 14.3

= 35.5 d < 45 d Note: Retention in biosolids holding is several

months, therefore > 45 d criteria is effectively met.

c) Storage Duration

Existing Biosolids Production = 0.00325 m3/m

3

Current Production = 3,735 m3/d x 0.00325 m

3/m

3

= 12.14 m3/d

Storage Duration = 3,360 m3

12.14 m3/d

= 276 days

2034 Projected = 5,426 m3/d x 0.00325

Biosolids Production = 17.63 m3/d

Storage Duration (2034) = 3,360

17.63

= 190 days

7.0 SOUTHAMPTON WWTP BIOSOLIDS CAPACITY

7.1 Design Criteria

From MOE Design Guidelines for Sewage Works – 2008

Solids Retention in Aeration and Digester ≥ 45 days

Loading to 1st Stage ≤ 1.6 kgVS/m

3•d

Total Storage ≥ 240 days

C-15

7.2 Existing Facilities

Digester Volume = 143 m3 1

st Stage

72 2nd

Stage

215 m3

Total

Storage = 1,288 m3

7.3 Existing Process and Production Data

Table C7.1

Biosolids Process Data

Year Month RAS WAS SRT MLSS MLVSS % VS

(m3/day) % (m

3/day) (mg/L) (d) (mg/l) (mg/l)

2013 Jan

56.6 12694 27.0 4812 3276 68.1

Feb

14195

4873 3160 64.8

Mar

13818

4445 2890 65.0

Apr

54.0 12270 16.7 4295 2805 65.3

May

46.8 11441 19.4 4000 2244 56.1

Jun

41.6 12120 18.3 3550 2105 59.3

Jul

48.8 12887 31.0 4484 3024 67.4

Aug 3697 2.36 44.3 13212 27.9 4070 2545 62.5

Sep 3513 2.39 43.4 10628 28.5 3305 2030 61.4

Oct 3345 2.22 49.3 10991 28.8 3896 2540 65.2

Nov 3250 1.49 50.4 10560 27.7 3713 2200 59.2

Dec 3296 1.67 36.6 11825

3560 2100 59.0

2014 Jan

50.5

3992 2660 66.6

Feb

49.4

4335 2960 68.3

Averages 3420 2.02 48.2 12220 25.0 4164 2810 67.5

Table C7.2


Year

Wastewater

Treated

(1,000 m3)

Sludge Volume

(m3/year)

Sludge to

Wastewater

Ratio

(m3/1000 m

3)

Sludge Density

(%)

2011 7,072.7 1,312.2 1.9 3.92

2012 5,017.1 1,749.6 3.5 3.71

2013 6,872.2 1,814.4 2.6 3.15

Weighted

Average 4.45 m

3/d 2.7 3.56

C-16

7.4 Calculations

a) 1st Stage Loading

WAS Load = 48 m3/d x 2.02 % solids x 67.5 % Volatile

= 545 kg VS/d

Loading = 397 kg VS/d ÷ 143 m3

= 2.78 kg/m3•d > 1.6

b) Solids Retention Time

SRT = SRT AERATION + SRT DIGESTER

Where:

SRT DIGESTER = Solids in Digester Solids Produced per day

= 215 m3 x 3.2 % Solids

1

= 12.0 days

SRT AERATION = 25.0 days (see Table C7.1)

Therefore:

SRT = 25.0 + 12.0

= 37.0 d < 45 d Note: Retention in biosolids holding is several

months, therefore > 45 d criteria is effectively met.

c) Storage Duration

Existing Biosolids Production = 0.0027 m3/m

3

Current Production = 1,730 m3/d x 0.0027 m

3/m

3

= 4.67 m3/d

Storage Duration = 1,288 m3 ÷ 4.67 m

3/d

= 276 days

2034 Projected = 2,485 m3/d x 0.0027

Biosolids Production = 6.7 m3/d

Storage Duration (2034) = 3,360 ÷ 6.7

= 2 days

1 Solids concentration in Digester is mean value based on 26 samples from 2011 to 2014.

APPENDIX C

ODOUR MANAGEMENT PLAN

Port Elgin WPCP – Odour Management Plan

Part 1 Background

1.1 Introduction

Odour from the collection and treatment of sewage waste can have a detrimental impact on the

quality of the life for the community for those that live and work close by, yet the sewage treatment

works are essential for maintaining a high quality of environmental and public health.

It is acknowledged that it is impossible to maintain and operate a waste system which results in zero

odour releases around the sewage treatment works under every circumstance. There may be a point

in time where the cost of further odour measures may be thought disproportional to the abatement

achieved and not financially sustainable.

This report is intended to be a Code of Practise/Best Practise that outlines the best practicable means

to minimize the impact of odours on the surrounding community.

The goals of this Odour Management Plan are the following:

1. To provide a framework to maintain and operate the facilities and minimize the potential for

offensive releases of odours.

2. For continual improvement and innovation to reduce the odour generators of the processes.

3. To demonstrate that appropriate odour control measures have been used.

4. To insure that the proper balance is achieved between all stakeholders.

5. To set out for the public what can be expected after a complaint of offensive odour and the

subsequent investigation.

6. The Town seeks to achieve a long term goal to be a good neighbour to the community by

minimizing offensive odour releases and reduce odour complaints.

1.2 Acknowledgements

The fundamentals of this Odour Management Plan are based on best management and operational practises and references obtained from:

Ministry of the Environment, ON, CA

Environmental Protection Agency, USA

New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency, NSW, AU

Department of the Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs, London , UK

Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, TX, US

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environmental, CO,US

1.3 Overview

Wastewater treatment plants represent essential urban infrastructure. Every resident in every urban area expects to be able to flush the toilet or pull the plug and see wastewater disappear without the need for further thought or action.

Sewage is produced as a natural by-product of human existence and numerous industrial processes

and is odourous by nature. Raw sewage is primarily water, but it also contains various other biological

and chemical materials, which, if released in an uncontrolled manner, can cause pollution.

As development has encroached on our wastewater facilities and our neighbours have become less

tolerant of nuisance odours; public concerns over Port Elgin Sewage Treatment plant are increasing.

Increased awareness of the environment, individual rights and especially homeowners adjacent to

development has meant people are now more likely to complain.

Odour control and abatement is a major issue for operators. To control odours they first have to be

detected.

Our understanding of the sense of smell is incomplete and there is no single measurement that will

predict the likelihood or the severity of an odour.

Even the very new development of the electronic nose odours are complicated by the large number of

odourants present that are very close to the detectable thresholds making the analytical

measurements difficult to correspond back to human sense of smell.

Staff has expended considerable time, energy and resources investigating and studying the extent of

the odour issues originating from the Port Elgin WPCP.

Odours produced from the processes at the sewage treatment plant are complex, fluctuating and

contain individual chemical compounds.

Odours are perceptible at different levels depending on the individual’s sensitivity.

While it would not be cost-effective to eliminate all odours generated from the collection and

treatment of sewage; it is realistic to reduce and minimize these odours.

1.4 Port Elgin WPCP – 2013 Odour Mitigation Measures

1. In April 2013, the media (activated carbon and potassium permanganate) was completely changed in the Odour Control Unit within the Inlet Works Building.

2. In May 2013, the Town started a software program for improved tracking, recording and logging of complaints and related details.

3. The Town has engaged the services of Andrew Lugowski from Conestoga-Rovers & Associates to complete a study on Treatment Plant Optimization focussing on process performance assessment and optimization of the whole process. Andrew’s approach is to study the plant processes to provide the optimal conditions to ensure the micro-organisms are hardy, healthy and hungry to naturally process the sewage.

4. David J. Neely, OCWA’s Process Specialist has specifically developed a Process Spreadsheet for this plant to allow Mr. Neely and OCWA operations staff to continually refine the process and to assist and demonstrate to the operators the steps to operate the plant within optimal plant parameters.

5. To provide additional analysis for the Treatment Plant Optimization Study, the OCWA Process Spreadsheet and operators complete the following in-house lab analysis weekly:

*Ammonia *Alkalinity *COD *Total P *TSS *MLSS *MLVS *WAS TS *Digestor SS

Refinements to the process are completed based on lab results in conjunction with the OCWA Process Spreadsheet.

The weekly in-house results are compared to the bi-weekly results from the SKG Lab.

6. Starting in 2013, the Town has been investigating all complaints during 7:00am to 6:00pm weekdays and attempting (with limited resources) to investigate off-hour and weekend complaints.

7. The Town has directed OCWA to revise the operation to minimize the possible odour issues by

completing the following whenever possible: * To monitor the weather and especially the wind patterns to “decant” under more favourable conditions so as not to cause odours to drift west toward the subdivision area, particularly the wind direction/conditions when the air to the digesters is turned back on after decanting. * To minimize the days when the air is off to the digesters when decanting.

* To complete the yearly digester tank cleanouts earlier in the year before the higher summertime flows combine with warmer days and nights. * The merits of the use of vanilla de-odourizer will be re-examined.

8. In early October 2013, the Town placed a multi-parameter weather station at the Town Offices to assist in the possible correlation of odour complaints to changes in atmospheric conditions and especially to track wind directions 24/7.

9. The Town has researched the range of circumstances and processes that may generate nuisance odours and discussed possible solutions with consultants and manufactures. In particular, most recently with the assistance of Mr. Lugowski and Mr. Neely who are the most familiar with day to day operations at the plant and related processes. Mr. Lugowski has stated that CRA study, analysis and on-site visits indicate a well run operation including the normal “earthy” smell which is characteristic of a healthy operation. Mr. Neely, in his experience, stated that the collection system is often the main reason for odour complaints.

2014 Odour Mitigation Measures (to date)

1. In 2014, the Town has been investigating all complaints during 7:00am to 6:00pm weekdays and attempting (with limited resources) to investigate off-hour and weekend complaints using the newly developed protocol with standardized forms and methods to ensure the same methodology is being used no matter who is investigating the complaint. From the weather station key atmospheric parameters are recorded along with details of field investigations when possible. Each odour complaint is logged and investigated with the results and a copy of the Odour Log is emailed to the complainant.

2. In April, the inlet works channels were modified to reduce turbulence inside the building when the forcemains were pumping; this reduction in turbulence has decreased the formulation of H₂S.

3. In May, with the aid of the Fire Department’s “Smoke Machine” the Inlet Works Odour Control Unit was optimized to balance air and air exchanges in both rooms and through the unit. As a result during a forcemain pump run more of the air that is displaced is directed through the odour control unit enabling the odour unit to dissipate the H₂S quicker.

4. In June, staff toured the various plant processes with an individual that lives north of the subdivision in the Brentwood and Oakwood area. This individual was not complaining only mentioned at times the sewage plant odours were stronger. This individual identified the Stage 1 & 2 digestors as the same odour that has been noticed at their house.

5. In July, staff toured the various plant processes with two individuals that frequently detect odours from the sewage plant at the nearby subdivision. The residents identified the Stage 1 & 2 digestors as the same detrimental odour that they experience at their homes in the Oakwood and Arlington area.

6. In August, a trial started with an atomizer and a proprietary environmentally safe compound (Ecosorb 505) that neutralizes the chemical compounds that causes odourous conditions. The trial started with the unit in the Headworks building with remarkable results in not masking odours but the odours disappeared within seconds of the unit start up. Multiple trials were conducted with three individuals at different times to gage the effectiveness of the unit and compound and the resulted odours.

7. In September, the atomizer and the Ecosorb 505 compound were relocated to the Stage 1 & 2 of the Digestor complex and is being strategically used when winds are forecasted to blow from the sewage plant SSE towards the subdivision. The trial of this compound is continuing but early indication is the compound neutralizes all odours without adding artificial masking aromas into the air.

8. Before the atomizer staff could not determine with certainty the wind direction when the winds were calm under 1 kilometer per hour however due to the size of molecules produced by the atomizer, staff now have clear evidence of the direction of the subtle wind patterns at the Digestor at the point of odour generation.

Part 2 Odour Generators

Any place in a system that waste is collected, conveyed, treated or applied has the potential to

generate and release probable offensive odours to the surrounding areas.

Dwellings/Buildings - In a municipal waste water environment this potential odour issue starts at

headwaters of the waste stream in your home or business, your sink, drain or toilet. Not only can

these odours be indoors they can also be detected outside of your building by your individual sewage

venting systems (that each building has) that release odours from your internal plumbing systems to

the environment. There are numerous commercial and residential buildings under certain atmospheric

conditions that draw the odourous gases from the building vents and then a downdraft forces the

odours to the ground causing odour complaints, or those odourous gases enter the building.

Collection system- Most odour issues are not detectable in the collection system as the waste stream

is continually moving and adding additional wastes as it moves downstream in the system. The flowing

of the waste continuously introduces oxygen to the waste stream preventing the waste from going into

an “anaerobic” or “septic” condition. At this time, while the waste is travelling in the sanitary sewers it

is venting from manhole covers and the numerous building vents. Historically, the Town has not had

an issue with widespread issues in the collection system.

Sewage Pump Stations- This is the first point location where various sanitary collection areas are

directed where the raw sewage is temporarily stored before pumping usually to the sewage treatment

plant for treatment. There have periodically been odour complaints from the sewage pump stations

usually in the warmer months when the temperature of the waste may increase the generation of

odourous substances.

Forcemain – This is where the sewage is pumped to the sewage treatment plant via a closed pipe

under pressure that can cause the sewage to go to an “anaerobic” or “septic” condition as there is no

dissolved oxygen available to permit the sewage to breathe, thus causing the generation of hydrogen

sulfide (H2S), which is the strong, offensive, rotten-egg odour.

Sewage Treatment Plant

Headworks Building- Since the addition of the headworks building, complete with an odour control

unit, odour generation from the headworks building has been minimal. The air quality is monitored

24/7, which means if hydrogen sulfide is above safe levels for plant operators to be in the building then

the emergency fans vent the gases outside until the levels return to safe levels. This emergency

venting will certainly release some odourous air from the headworks building.

A second intermittent odour source is the septage receiving area, which creates odours when septage hauling trucks discharge at the plant. Although not continuous, odours released during septage discharges were found to be very briefly significant. Another area of concern identified is the odourous air intermittently released from the Headworks garage when the doors were opened to transport, by truck, the wastewater debris, primarily grit and rags. The emergency venting, septage station and Headworks waste removal has shown no correlation to the timing of odour complaints. Aeration Cells – The Port Elgin Plant is an extended aeration plant where oxygen is supplied to support biological organisms to maintain biological treatment where the sewage contains organic matter, which is used as food by microorganisms in order to survive and multiply. This is the first biological treatment process and with the waste receiving continuous oxygenated air, the release of odours is minimal.

Clarifiers – The purpose of the clarifiers is to continuously remove settleable solids from the aeration tank mixed liquor. The process separates the solids (activated sludge) as quickly as possible from the aeration tank mixed liquor. Under normal operating conditions the two clarifiers are very small contributors to any odour release as, by design, the liquid at the surface of the qualifiers is fully treated and the only remaining step in the process is Ultra Violet treatment for bacteria before being conveyed to the outfall.

Digestor Complex –The purpose of the digestion is to reduce quantity of sludge to be removed from the site. In addition, digestion also further reduces pathogens and odour potential.

The Town of Saugeen Shores Port Elgin W astewater Treatment Plant has been provided with a 2-stage aerobic sludge digestor. The whole digestive process provides a retention time of 2-5 days depending on the season and the flows coming into the plant, which affect the wasting process. The aeration is continuous with the exception of “decanting” where water and very light waste is drawn off the top of the tank for re-treatment. When the aeration system is turned on and decanting there can be a period when odours can be released as the waste is being suspended by the addition of air. Normally in the waste water industry, the wastewater digestion process has the greatest potential for offensive odour generation.

Ultra Violet Treatment- This the last process where the waste water is treated with ultra violet

light to reduce the e-coli and pathogens in the effluent before being released to the

environment via an outfall pipe.

Agricultural – There is one very large intensive agricultural enterprise along with numerous

smaller operations that has affected the air quality in widespread areas of Saugeen Shores.

Port Elgin Landfill – Although the landfill is capped and closed, it continuously releases various

gases into the environment through the natural decaying process of a closed landfill. The

closed landfill lands are now a very well used four season off-leash dog park. As part of the

Ministry of Environment approved closure plan, the Town of Saugeen Shores continues to

monitor and report the condition of the closed landfill lands.

Part 3 Odour

3.1 What is Odour?

Humans have a sensitive sense of smell and can detect odour even when the chemicals are

present in very low concentrations. Most odours are a mixture of many chemicals that interact

to produce what we detect as being an odour. Different life experiences and natural variations

in the population can result in different sensations and emotional responses by individuals to

the same odour compounds.

The human condition and the various complex relationships influences our perception of odour

and whether we find it acceptable or objectionable or offensive.

Odours emitted from sewage treatment plants are complex and contain many individual Odourous chemical species. The exact chemical cocktail will depend upon many characteristics of the influent, the treatment process, plant loading, industrial effluent in the feed and operational management. The cumulative effect of these four parameters: character, strength, duration, and frequency creates the nuisance experience and the likely citizen complaint. This conceptual model helps define odour episodes and assists in the development of a credible odour monitoring program.

CHARACTER - odours that would be generally accepted as ‘unpleasant’ will be potentially offensive. Odours from a sewage process would generally be accepted as more unpleasant in comparison to odour from, for example, a bakery. There are methods of qualitatively assessing ‘pleasantness’ of odour such as the use of the Hedonic scale, but these are still very subjective. Odour can also be described by a subjective descriptor as ‘sweaty’, ‘faecal’, ‘fishy’, ‘spicy’, ‘fruity’ etc. The strength of an odour referenced to its detection threshold can be quantified and the higher the odour strength, the more the likelihood of an odour being detected. If an odour is present above the threshold of recognition, this will usually lead to the receptor being able to clearly identify the odour and often associate the odour with potential sources or activities. The ability to measure odour concentration often results in this being a major factor in the assessment of an odour problem. STRENGTH of the odour refers to the overall intensity or concentration of the odour. The stronger the odour, the more likely a citizen is to be annoyed. Even pleasant odours, such as perfumes, can be annoying at high odour strength. FREQUENCY - odours that are released frequently or continuously from the process are more likely to be determined to be offensive. In some circumstances, odours that are released periodically can be intrusive and the odour frequency is often assessed in conjunction with the odour's persistence in the environment. The more frequent the intrusion into the citizen’s life, the more annoying each experience becomes.

DURATION- odours that are continuously released from processes or those that are emitted on a frequent basis, but persist in the environment for a long period (that is: do not readily disperse to a level where the odour is no longer detected) are more likely to be judged as offensive. It is possible to put forward a case that even less unpleasant odours (such as food processing odours) may be offensive if the releases are continuous or frequent and persistent. The persistence of an odour is also affected by the meteorological conditions. Longer duration odour episodes can lead to more drastic changes in plans around a citizen’s home or community. Episodes of very short duration may be over before a citizen changes plans. While it may not be cost-effective to eliminate all odours generated at the wastewater treatment plant, it is realistic to significantly reduce these odours. However, replacing aging equipment and installing new systems to realize substantial odour reduction is an expensive undertaking and may not be financially sustainable.

3.2 Where Do Wastewater Odours Come From? Naturally occurring bacteria play a major role in the food digestion process. In the digestive system, bacteria help break food down into chemicals that the body needs for energy and cell production. Not all of the food is used, however, and some portion exits as human waste. Some bacteria will also exit with the waste. Although wastewater is a gray liquid that is more than 99% water and less than 1% solid the remaining bacteria has the potential for odour generation.

3.3 Characteristics of sewage odours

The primary odours for the treatment and collection of sewage are biogenic due to the natural

degradation of organic matter by microorganisms. In household sewages, the main causes of

odour are normally considered to be ammonia (urine- pungent and irritating) and hydrogen

sulfide (rotten egg smell). In raw sewage with an industrial component, it is a variation of a

chemical cocktail of odours and is extensive and is exacerbated by warm effluent and by

solvents and petroleum derivatives.

Odour character is basically what the odour smells like or how the complainant would describe

it. Any descriptor (such as fishy, sewage, rotten eggs, cabbage, bakery, etc.) that can be

provided may aid to pinpoint the source of the odour from the various biological and

mechanical processes at the plant or the chemical compound associated with that particular

odour.

3.4 Factors influencing odour effects

3.4.1 Factors of Human Response

Approximately 2% of the population are likely to be hypersensitive and 2% anosmic (unable to detect any odour). The impact and response to an odour of the remaining 96% of the population to the event varies significantly from person to person. An individual that may find one odour offensive may find another odour, that others find offensive, not offensive or vice versa.

Whether an odour has an objectionable or offensive effect will depend on the frequency, intensity, duration, and offensiveness. These factors are collectively known as the FIDOL factors and are described in Table 3.1.

Different combinations of these factors can result in adverse effects. For example, odours may occur frequently in short bursts, or for longer, less-frequent periods, and may be defined as having 'chronic' or 'acute' effects.

Depending on the severity of the odour event, one single occurrence may be sufficient to deem that a significant adverse effect has occurred. However, in other situations the duration may be sufficiently low and the impact on neighbours sufficiently minor that the frequency of events would need to be higher before an adverse effect would be deemed to have occurred.

Table 3.1: Description of the FIDOL factors

Frequency How often an individual is exposed to odour

Intensity The strength of the odour

Duration The length of a particular odour event

Offensiveness/character The character relates to the 'hedonic tone' of the odour, which may be pleasant, neutral or unpleasant

Location The type of land use and nature of human activities in the vicinity of an odour source

Other factors that may determine whether an objectionable or offensive effect from an odour emission is likely to occur are the presence of background odours, factors influencing perception, and the mental and physical state of the affected person.

Odour perception is often related to the source of an odour and whether the activity causing it is considered acceptable in a particular location.

Perception is also an important factor where the activity generating the odour is considered offensive in nature or is culturally offensive.

High levels of background odour in an area can desensitise people to a specific odour, and the addition of other similar odours may go unnoticed. Conversely, the cumulative effects from additional odour may result in the odour becoming unacceptable. The likely effect depends primarily on the nature of the odours and the location in which they are occurring. If the nature of the odour is quite different to the background odour, then the background odour will probably not affect the perception of odour from a new odour source.

Sensitisation can also occur where an incident with significant adverse effects changes a person's threshold of acceptability for an odour. This can result in a high level of complaint over the long term and a general distrust within the community of those perceived as responsible for the odour.

4.0 Odour Control Methods

Dispersion and dilution

The most predominately used method in the industry (and the most cost effective odour

control measure to reduce the impact of plant operations) relies on dispersion for minimisation

of the offensive odours. Typically, odours dissipate in ambient air aided by thermal dispersion.

This dilution of odourous air is a function of distance, topography, and meteorological

conditions. Further distances between odour sources and the public will result in fewer

nuisance complaints. Topographical features can either enhance dilution or reduce dilution

depending on the particular feature. Wind breaks or tree lines will encourage mixing of the

odourous air with clean air, whereas valleys or low areas may reduce odour dilution.

Meteorological conditions also affect dilution. Maximum dilution occurs when the cool air near the ground is heating and rising. Conversely, during the late evenings when it is calm and the atmosphere is cooling, the odourous air is trapped near the ground and there is little dilution.

METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS - as the majority of odour control techniques finally rely on dispersion for minimisation of odour effects, the meteorological conditions will be of prime importance. If there are conditions prevalent that are disadvantageous for dispersion, odours may be detected even though the best available control methods are in use. These conditions should normally be prevalent for less than 1% of the year. Thus, in most cases, the detection of an odour that is potentially offensive will result in a detailed process assessment to ensure that the process management and control is operating normally and then to identify possible weather related effects.

Under certain meteorological conditions combined with a very calm winds that create

temperature inversion (where air near the ground is trapped by warm air above), air dilution

and mixing are decreased that can cause odour issues.

On warmer sunny days, the low meteorological stability causes odour emissions to rise upwards and provide good dispersal; however under certain conditions (usually after sunset) the temperature differential of the water to land causes cooler conditions with light or no wind results in odour emissions to hang closer to the ground and not disperse. In the situation of the Port Elgin WPCP, the predominately westerly wind blows any odours that are generated to non-residential areas. If the winds are easterly and circumstances cause less than ideal dispersion the potential for odour to impact the residential areas is increased. Wind The direction and strength of wind on a plant site will have significant implications on the surrounding neighbours in the event that odour emissions are released off site. The recognised atmospheric stability of these will have an effect on the dispersion of odours from the facility. The ultimate objective of all site operators should be to avoid releases of malodourous emissions, which could be perceived as offensive at nearby receptors. As routine practice, and part of the site Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), wind direction and strength should be considered as a key determinant as to which particular activity is carried out on a daily basis. There will always need to be a balance between what is realistically achievable without compromising the ability to carry out key activities on time. Wind direction and strength will have a greater impact on odour dispersal and its effect on the wider community than any other climatic condition. Ambient temperature The effect of temperature on the generation of odours is significant. Although there is little a site operator can do to change the weather, operators may be able to plan to manage key activities on site to minimise the detrimental impact they will have on the surrounding environment and human health. Warm temperatures give rise to an increase in the generation of odours from waste processing facilities for a variety of reasons. Warm temperatures affect the condition of raw sewage particularly those from household sources. Weather Station Meteorological conditions will be constantly measured and logged by the weather station. Parameters measured will include pressure, temperature, wind speed and direction, rainfall and humidity. The weather data, along with plant data, will be used to assist in complaint investigation and analysis. It is also used to anticipate times of increased offsite odour impact risk in order to understand and reschedule, if possible, plant operations to minimize the potential increased odour generation risk events.

Inlet Works Odour Control Unit

In the chemical adsorption system the air stream is passed over a bed of adsorbent media (activated carbon and aluminum permanganate) where the odour-causing compounds are attracted to and adhere to the surface of the adsorbent. There is no on-going chemical supply to the system, and there are no biological processes to be upset. Adsorption is applicable to a wide range of compounds. Hydrogen sulfide and related sulfur-based compounds are removed effectively by carbon adsorption systems, but ammonia and other nitrogen-based compounds are not effectively treated.

The most successful odour control programs are those that take a holistic approach and examine the complete system from sewer users to land application practices. Just as a good physician can identify the cause of the illness and not just treat the symptoms, effective odour management will identify and manage the source of odours and not just attempt to mask or hide the offensive odours. In addition, a holistic approach will encompass effective communications with those groups that may be negatively impacted by odours.

Part 5 Odour Complaints

What you need to know to make an odour complaint:

We cannot confirm a nuisance violation without knowing your identity. However, if you want to remain anonymous, we can still conduct an investigation to determine if there is a violation of operational rules or standards.

When we investigate a nuisance complaint, we gather evidence to help us evaluate the four primary characteristics of odours—frequency, intensity, duration, and offensiveness (FIDO)—so any information you can provide concerning these characteristics will assist us in the investigation. We also need information regarding the alleged source of the odour.

The presence of any of these four factors alone at a very high level can result in a nuisance violation, but usually it is a combination of the factors that results in a determination that a nuisance exists.

Every effort is made to respond to complaints in a timely fashion.

Part 6 Odour Assessment

6.0 General principles

Odour complaint data can be a good indicator of the overall effect of an odour discharge from

the plant. However, odour complaints do not necessarily indicate the effect of the plant

operations as many people will not complain if very annoyed and others may have stopped

complaining as they may feel it is making no difference.

The few chronic complainants may reduce the overall effectiveness of compliant records

because they skew the complaint frequency data compared to all other evidence of adverse

effects.

Complaint records can be used to build up a long term picture of odour issues and effects on

the community.

6.1 Odour Complaint Investigations

Consistent procedures for odour complaint investigations and records are required to ensure

the data captured at each event is comparable to isolate, the odour generator and the effect.

It is difficult to validate complaints in every circumstance because odour emissions are often

highly variable with time and atmospheric conditions. Even if the investigator is close when the

odour is reported due to varying wind speed/direction or atmospheric stability the odour may

have disappeared.

Proactive investigations

Staff have visited the site on occasions when the winds/temperatures and atmospheric

conditions appeared ideal to cause odour complaints.

Sensitivity of Investigators

Three Town staff members along with OCWA operations staff conduct odour investigations.

With any individual the sense of smell ranges greatly. The OCWA staff generally are

desensitised (to some degree) to the plant odours as they have worked at the plant for some

time. The three Town staff believe their sense of smell is somewhere within the “normal”

range of the population and can therefore be considered as representative. Staff is aware that

their sense of smell may not be as sensitive as others, however being aware of a possible “bias”

will be accounted for in any conclusions.

For example in Germany, VDI 3882 (Part 1) uses an odour intensity range from 0 to 6 to try and

simulate the sensory annoyance.

Table 6.1.1 - VDI 3882 Odour Intensity Categories

Odour Intensity Intensity

Not detectable 0 No odour detected

Very Weak 1 An odour can be detected

Weak 2 Odour is weak but not yet distinct, not annoying

Distinct 3 Odour is clearly distinct

Strong 4 Strong odour detectable

Very Strong 5 Very strong odour detectable annoying for any period

Extremely Strong 6 Extremely strong odour detectable

Staying permanently in the plume will result in the investigator becoming locally desensitized to

the odour.

6.2 Odour – general

While it is possible to measure the odour strength using a standardised method (dynamic olfactometry), it is more difficult to quantify the offensiveness of the odour. For example, in Germany, VDI 3882 uses an odour intensity range from 0 to 6 to try and simulate the sensory annoyance. The difficulty with such scales is that they still rely upon subjective analysis and hence standardisation is almost impossible. In general, odour effects are not caused by one single pollutant or chemical species, odour is a 'cocktail' of chemical species emitted from a process. The nose is an extremely sensitive receptor of odour - it can respond to small variations in concentration over periods of a few seconds and at concentrations of fractions of a part per billion. There are many issues that influence the perception of an odour including variations due to the subjectivity of the receptor, dispersion of odour due to local meteorological conditions and variations in the generation of odour from the process due to raw materials and cycle operations in the process. The assessment of offensiveness of odour therefore necessarily remains a subjective sensory olfactory response of observers. In general, there is very little difference between the assessment of offensiveness of an odour and its potential for nuisance. The following matters should be considered when determining the degree of potential offence of an odour.

6.3 Summarising complaint data

A chronological summary of odour complaints can be used to indicate changes in long-term odour exposure. Trends can illustrate seasonal changes in complaint frequency, which may be due to changes in plant production or in the prevailing meteorology.

Table 6.3.1: Complaint investigation and recording procedure

Step Action

Step 1: Receive the complaint

1. In SRM record

Name(s) and addresses of complainant(s).

Time and location of complaint.

The complainant's description of the alleged odour event, including strength, duration and character of the odour.

Any description and the circumstances regarding nuisance odours are beneficial.

Alleged source of the odour.

Record meteorological information from Plex weather station.

Step 2: Visit the location of the complaint

2. Record the time of arrival. 3. Attempt to locate and assess the odour first hand. 4. Determine and record if there is a detectable odour and if so, is it

recognizable. 5. Assess and record the strength/intensity, character and duration of

the odour using FIDO Chart. 6. Record the wind direction and strength, and weather conditions

throughout the investigation and how these were determined. 7. Record the type of impact of the odour. 8. Assess the width of the odour plume by moving at right angles to

the wind direction, where possible. 9. If the investigator has detected odours at this same location other

times, document a comparison to current circumstances with previous observations.

10. Record the time of departure from the complainant's location.

Step 3: If there is evidence of an odour

11. Proceed upwind to re-verify the suspected odour plume direction and width.

12. The exact locations for monitoring will be dependent on the meteorological conditions in the day, but in general terms the

Step Action

following sequence of assessment is followed, with areas of weaker strength inspected prior to stronger.

13. Visit the suspected site causing the odour. If it’s plant or facility

related contact operations staff.

14. Assess the odour upwind of the suspected source to verify origin of odour release.

15. Record any observations of recognisable odour at other locations surrounding the alleged source, including times of observations at each location.

16. Confirm the site operations taking place at the time of the complaint if plant or facility related.

17. Request an explanation for the odour discharge if plant or facility related.

18. Record the name(s) of persons spoken to at the site and their comments.

19. Investigate whether odours are from abnormal or normal operations and record evidence to support the conclusions made.

Step 4: Make overall assessment

20. Make an overall assessment of adverse effects beyond the boundary.

6.4 Odour Recognition

In general, recognition thresholds are approximately three to five times the detection

threshold.

Be clear on whether it is detection level or recognition level.

Table 5.6.1 Chemical indicators/descriptors

Chemical Odour Threshold (g/m³) Odour Description

Acetic acid 43 Vinegar

Butyric acid 0.35 - 86 Rancid

Valeric acid 8 – 12,000 Sweat

Hydrogen sulphide 0.76 Rotten eggs

Methyl mercaptan 0.003 - 38 Cabbage

Ethyl mercaptan 0.043 Decayed cabbage

Allyl mercaptan 0.0001 – 0.0005 Garlic like

Dimethyl sulphide 0.34 – 1.1 Rotten vegetables

Diethyl sulphide 1.4 Ether

Diemethyl disulphide 1.1 - 46 Putrefaction

Thiocresol 0.001 Rancid, skunk like

Ammonia 100 – 11, 600 Pungent and irritating

Methyl amine 1.2 - 65 Rotten fish

Dimethylamine 47 - 160 Fish

Skatole 0.012 – 0.35 Faecal

Formaldehyde 490 Acrid

Acetaldehyde 0.01 - 4 Fruit, apple

Butyraldehyde 15 Rancid

Pentanal 2.5 - 34 Fruit, apple

Butanone 870 Green apple

6.5 Complainant’s Behaviour Where an odour has affected residents for some time there is the possibility that receptors can apparently become hyper-sensitive to an unwanted or persistent odour to the extent that one can almost anticipate an odour nuisance, even when it is at very low concentration. Repeated exposure to an odour may mean that what used to be a faint odour can become a signal for annoyance or complaint if an association develops in an individual’s mind between any occurrence of a detectable odour and significant “annoyance”. This association might develop from repeated, previous exposure when a faint odour has escalated to beyond the annoyance level, so that the individual subsequently reacts to the possibility that a faint odour will escalate again in the same way. This enhanced sensitivity may lead to the individual making a complaint about odours which are only very faint or transient. A TSS inspector or indeed any other independent observer, might well not consider the same odour exposure episode to be worthy of complaint, and certainly not a statutory nuisance. This phenomenon can mean that some odour complaints may be seen by TSS as unjustified. There is also the possibility that receptors will continue to complain even after very effective odour mitigation measures have been put in place. In some cases social and psychological factors have a greater bearing on odour perception than actual exposure. As has been explained above, sensitivity to odours varies very widely between different individuals, so TSS need to be aware of the possibility that one or more persistent complainants may have an exceptionally sensitive sense of smell. At the other extreme, residents who have been brought up, or lived in an area close to significant odour source, such as a large sewage treatment works, may be so used to, and tolerant of, relatively strong “background” odours that they do not experience sufficient annoyance or impact to complain for most of the time. Typically an established community will tolerate odour for many years with no more than an occasional complaint, but this complaint

pattern can be quickly interrupted if new and less tolerant residents move in to the area, especially if the new residents move in to new housing in the same area. Odour complaints can suddenly assume a much higher profile in such circumstances. A substantial degree of apparent, rather than real odour tolerance can also build up where residents have been exposed to alleged nuisance odours for many years and, despite repeated complaints, there is no real perception of any real improvement. This reticence to complain, because complaints do not seem to result in any improvement, is often referred to as complaint fatigue, and can lead to TSS mistakenly concluding that a complaint issue has been resolved.

Part 7.0 Odour Complaint Response

One of the most important pieces of an odour management plan is the response protocol to address odour complaints. This is a critical issue from three perspectives. First, it is sometimes difficult to separate serious odour complaints resulting from excessive odour emissions from odour complaints registered by disgruntled neighbors during non-odour events. Second, it is difficult to determine how many valid complaints are needed to trigger the implementation of an odour control technology. And third, there must be some method for monitoring the effectiveness of the technology. The complaint response protocol will set up an odour monitoring plan and set guidelines for an acceptable number of odour events and some method to evaluate the effectiveness of an odour control technology. For this, it is critical to foster and maintain a good relationship with neighbors and other community members.

Part 8.0 ODOUR COMPLAINT POLICY AND PROCEDURES

ACTIONS TO AN ODOUR COMPLAINT The Town of Saugeen Shores (TSS) and Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) will respond to odour complaints as resources and circumstances allow. It is not practical that every complaint can be followed up with an odour investigation or site visit. Upon receipt of an odour complaint from a citizen, the TSS and/or OCWA initiate the following protocol. 1. Valid Complaint In order to successfully investigate an odour complaint, there must be an identifiable aggrieved party (complainant) and sufficient information to validate the complaint. Complainants must include sufficient information when reporting a complaint to aid in the odour complaint investigation.

Information includes the following: a. Name and address of the complainant(s) (unless a complainant is requesting anonymity*); b. Location where the receptor experienced the odour. c. Date, time, frequency and duration of the odour; d. Nature of any allegation of adverse effects on the complainant's health, property, etc. e. Nature of any allegation of interference with the normal use and enjoyment of the complainant's property, neighbourhood, etc. f. Alleged source of odour; and g. Wind speed, direction and weather conditions at the time of the complaint (to the best of the complainant’s ability). Complaints received will be logged in the TSS Service Request Module (SRM) and will be normally followed up as soon as resources permit. 2. Initial Response to Complaint Complaints by Email Normal business hours for complaint response through emails are Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7 a.m.to 6 p.m. If a complaint is received by email during the work week non-office business hours, the weekend or on a holiday, the department staff may still be available to respond promptly. Complaints by phone Normal business hours for complaint response through telephone are Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m.to 4:30 p.m. Messages left after office hours will be logged as soon as practical. 3. Determine if an investigation is required and resources allow for an investigation. TSS will attempt to determine if the conditions surrounding the odour event warrant an investigation. In order to provide the best possible resolution to the complaint, the TSS will take into consideration the local resources available to address the issue. Response time may vary depending on staff availability, with the understanding that complaints will be responded to as soon as reasonably possible. 4. Complaints Protocol When possible, assess the odour first-hand. It would be ideal if an investigator could be at the complainant’s location at the time that the odour is occurring, in order to experience the same conditions that generated the complaint. This may not be possible, but an effort will be made to duplicate the experience of the complainant. Caution should be taken, however, to ensure that this information-gathering procedure not be construed as “soliciting” additional complaints.

5. Complaints Follow-up Within two business days of the complaint, TSS staff department will call or email a receipt of the complaint and if possible an update or result of the investigation of the odour complaint. If the preponderance of the evidence collected during the course of the investigation (including discussions with the complainant and observations by the investigator) confirms the presence of odours in such concentration and duration as to cause a reasonable negative effect on human health and the environment, the TSS will explain the circumstances of the odour generation and what process, operational or equipment modifications have been implemented to minimize future odours.

Part 9.0 – Conclusions to Date

A review of odour investigations and the available data indicate the following conclusions at

this time:

1. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is typically the best indicator of sewage plant odours, however,

since the Inlet Works Building has been placed in service in 2009 no one has complained

about any odour that could be characterised as a rotten egg smell - an indicator of H2S.

2. From the complaint log it would appear that the complaints about odour may be

detectable but not recognizable as the complaints only describe “earthy smell” or

“sewage odour”. Staff’s odour investigations support that it is difficult to place a

chemical descriptor on the odours.

3. Meteorological conditions primarily wind direction followed by a decreased

atmospheric pressure have the greatest impact on the odours that can be detected in

the residential areas.

4. In 2013, agricultural activities account for a large number of sewage odour complaints.

In 2014, agricultural activities account did not account for many sewage complaints

possibly due to the education and identification of previous agricultural activities as the

source.

5. Operational procedures have found to have a correlation to odour complaints primarily

if the digestor air has been turned off to “decant” and secondly, when transferring

sludge from Digestor Stage 1 & 2 to Digestor storage tanks.

6. In 2013, despite numerous offers to visit the Port Elgin WPCP to track the complaints

odour source, only one individual agreed to visit the plant and smell the various odours

from the various plant processes. That one individual stated that odours that were

sensed at that individual’s home did not match or compare to any plant processes.

7. In 2014, three individuals agreed to visit the plant and smell the various odours from the

various plant processes. All individuals stated that odours that were sensed at that

individual’s home matched the Stage 1 & Stage 2 Digestor process. One individual

commented that their spouse whenever noticed that odour thought someone was

simply working in the garden in the area as it was identified by the property owners as

“earthy” and not offensive.

8. The number of complaints increases as does the irritability of complainants as the

temperature rises and is an intensified by high humidity conditions.

9. The odours maybe detectable however the complainants have not provided any

practical descriptors only that it is sewage and is terrible. This somewhat corroborates

TSS staff findings that the odour is detectable but the threshold is too low to be

identifiable. In 2014, staff have not investigated any odour that is identifiable which a

descriptor could be placed.

10. The odours continue to be highly variable with time and atmospheric conditions.

11. At times there is no correlation between the sewage plant and an odour compliant, due

to these types of events the collection system is checked and has been found to be

operating with no issues. One possible explanation is the home owner’s buildings

sewage vent stacks which due to atmospheric conditions could be in a downdraft

condition that forces the vented waste odours downward, resulting in odourous air

being concentrated around the building. In 2014, one resident has accepted a carbon

stack filter that has been very effective controlling/minimizing odours in other areas of

the municipality.

12.

APPENDIX D

WATERCAD MODEL INFORMATION

of 10

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

J-5 216.0 469773.9 4919950.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-10 198.2 468406.1 4920470.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-15 181.3 469646.9 4926496.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-20 183.0 471432.6 4928860.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-25 193.4 470226.5 4926166.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-30 201.8 469191.9 4920633.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-35 204.7 469813.6 4921048.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-40 183.5 469991.5 4926785.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-45 202.0 468784.7 4919920.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-50 199.2 468705.7 4920282.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-55 181.7 470366.7 4927450.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-60 187.9 471750.1 4928906.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-65 202.3 469602.8 4921168.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-70 193.4 470743.5 4925629.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 1.411 0.369

J-75 216.0 469719.6 4920089.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-80 180.5 469433.3 4925793.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-85 188.8 471028.9 4927760.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-90 185.2 469720.5 4925973.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-95 180.0 468013.5 4921410.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.291 0.559

J-100 180.0 468036.8 4921409.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-105 189.2 470821.7 4927617.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.291 0.569

J-110 198.0 468862.0 4921284.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-115 203.6 468484.1 4919084.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-120 211.6 469527.5 4919455.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.581 1.119

J-125 210.5 469562.7 4919481.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-130 203.0 468316.7 4919126.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-135 201.6 468338.8 4919164.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-140 201.7 468983.0 4920265.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-145 202.0 469023.5 4920243.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-150 215.8 469665.3 4920000.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-155 181.7 469543.3 4926306.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-160 181.7 470237.7 4927358.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-165 183.1 470293.7 4927328.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-170 206.7 469088.4 4919718.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-175 195.0 468533.6 4921427.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-180 195.4 468504.4 4921368.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-185 195.9 470428.9 4925810.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

Ultimate

Model

Junction

Elevation

(mASL)

Existing

X

(m)

Y

(m)

2034

Z:\14007-Saugeen-Shores-Water_and_Sewer_Master_Plan_Update\Projects\WaterCAD\14007-14Aug28 Modelling Design Brief.xls

of 10

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Ultimate

Model

Junction

Elevation

(mASL)

Existing

X

(m)

Y

(m)

2034

J-190 194.8 470371.4 4925843.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-195 200.0 469450.2 4921099.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-200 184.9 469680.0 4926238.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-205 189.8 470126.2 4925988.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-210 187.1 469955.4 4926561.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-215 183.0 468110.6 4921720.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-220 182.4 468096.2 4921650.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-225 187.4 470362.9 4926813.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-230 185.3 469781.9 4926417.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-235 185.6 470429.2 4927251.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-240 186.1 469886.8 4926600.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-245 204.6 469940.0 4921269.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-250 202.5 469728.3 4921389.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-255 181.7 469504.6 4926235.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-260 186.4 470227.6 4926888.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-265 204.7 469894.9 4921190.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-270 202.4 469402.6 4920757.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-275 192.1 470329.1 4926349.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-280 200.6 468544.2 4920108.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-285 201.0 468617.9 4920069.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-290 204.3 469708.2 4920865.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-295 215.9 469694.2 4919983.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-300 196.0 470379.4 4925097.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-305 196.1 470787.6 4926099.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-310 181.4 469579.1 4926058.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-315 195.6 471303.8 4927003.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-320 195.8 470579.6 4926802.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-325 191.0 471379.4 4927142.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-330 178.0 468013.4 4921060.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-335 200.0 468346.8 4919811.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-340 199.0 468271.1 4919854.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-345 194.9 470278.4 4925904.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-350 194.1 470480.2 4926267.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-355 195.9 471203.3 4926818.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-360 194.4 470378.6 4926081.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-365 182.3 469729.8 4926624.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-370 199.8 468666.8 4920200.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369


of 10

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Ultimate

Model

Junction

Elevation

(mASL)

Existing

X

(m)

Y

(m)

2034

J-375 203.9 469564.1 4920659.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-380 194.9 471047.1 4926909.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-385 186.1 469857.2 4925895.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-390 198.0 468816.7 4921191.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-395 198.0 468770.1 4921108.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-400 206.7 469714.4 4920574.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-405 206.9 469764.5 4920658.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-410 204.0 469182.0 4920144.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-415 203.8 469130.9 4920057.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-420 193.0 468654.2 4921935.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-425 204.9 469444.6 4920362.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-430 205.0 469394.7 4920275.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-435 199.0 470885.2 4926043.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-440 196.1 470798.7 4926092.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-445 200.7 469130.9 4920786.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-450 200.7 469085.8 4920695.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-455 198.1 468719.8 4921019.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-460 213.9 469927.1 4920456.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-465 209.5 469823.3 4920516.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-470 207.1 469609.2 4920396.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-475 209.7 469711.7 4920337.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 1.651 3.189

J-480 201.0 469297.9 4920816.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-485 201.8 469241.8 4920722.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-490 201.4 468932.4 4920172.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-495 202.3 469026.4 4920117.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-500 201.5 468828.0 4919989.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-505 202.3 468923.4 4919935.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-510 210.0 469655.1 4920242.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-515 204.0 469241.9 4920238.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-520 186.2 471870.2 4929273.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-525 186.0 471758.2 4929271.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-530 204.6 469501.4 4920459.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-535 202.4 469132.9 4920300.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-540 201.8 469035.5 4920357.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-545 202.0 468773.4 4919900.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-550 202.2 468871.1 4919843.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-555 199.3 468768.6 4920390.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369


of 10

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Ultimate

Model

Junction

Elevation

(mASL)

Existing

X

(m)

Y

(m)

2034

J-560 200.5 469228.3 4920954.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-565 200.0 469130.1 4921012.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-570 195.8 468356.8 4921112.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-575 199.0 469349.8 4921158.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-580 205.6 469147.2 4919819.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-585 179.6 468036.1 4921293.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-590 188.0 470107.6 4926341.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-595 188.2 470161.1 4926450.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-600 180.0 469022.9 4923867.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-605 202.5 469526.9 4920974.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-610 210.6 468401.6 4919284.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-615 195.5 470548.2 4925742.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-620 179.0 469364.2 4926317.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-625 200.0 468388.5 4919894.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-630 210.0 469894.0 4920639.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-635 198.0 471935.9 4927376.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-640 198.0 472004.4 4927501.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-645 196.0 471773.3 4927453.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-650 197.6 471705.2 4927323.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-655 194.3 471254.4 4927621.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-660 198.6 471855.6 4927233.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-665 198.6 471782.5 4927102.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-670 186.3 470124.8 4926708.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-675 183.6 470090.2 4926963.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-680 195.8 471311.9 4926998.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-685 195.6 471386.7 4927134.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-690 197.4 471466.2 4926911.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-695 197.8 471544.2 4927049.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-700 193.7 471147.6 4927090.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-705 192.8 471225.8 4927229.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-710 199.0 471493.4 4926587.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-715 199.0 471413.4 4926448.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-720 214.0 469820.0 4920275.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-725 179.9 469360.8 4925834.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-730 180.9 469423.5 4925125.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-735 198.6 471700.9 4926958.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-740 181.3 469448.0 4925178.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369


of 10

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Ultimate

Model

Junction

Elevation

(mASL)

Existing

X

(m)

Y

(m)

2034

J-745 193.4 470433.5 4926534.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-750 194.3 470580.2 4926448.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.631 0.369

J-755 194.5 470026.2 4921418.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 1.219

J-760 180.4 469504.4 4925284.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-765 194.7 470739.3 4926361.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-770 196.2 470894.9 4926274.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-775 208.2 468966.0 4919507.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-780 200.3 472094.1 4927291.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-785 187.8 469927.5 4925045.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-790 181.9 471252.4 4928857.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-795 182.5 470841.4 4928368.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-800 195.2 470638.7 4926180.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-805 202.0 472020.6 4927144.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-810 197.7 468107.3 4919947.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-815 187.8 470066.4 4926268.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-820 197.0 468166.5 4920607.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-825 181.2 467696.3 4921831.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-830 181.0 467783.7 4922009.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-835 201.0 471956.1 4927005.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-840 191.4 470065.5 4925287.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-845 200.0 470243.1 4925208.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-850 181.7 467870.3 4921729.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-855 193.9 470679.6 4926624.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-860 184.1 470194.7 4927151.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-865 181.0 470113.0 4927197.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.601 0.369

J-870 182.0 471181.0 4928771.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 1.149

J-875 187.0 471384.8 4928768.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-880 202.8 468785.4 4919610.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-885 185.0 470628.4 4927807.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-890 178.8 470495.1 4927977.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-895 189.4 471818.6 4928854.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-900 196.2 471099.1 4926623.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-905 210.9 470096.2 4920829.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-910 204.2 470137.2 4921608.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-915 194.8 470937.1 4926714.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-920 180.0 467987.1 4920817.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-925 180.0 468081.9 4921026.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369


of 10

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Ultimate

Model

Junction

Elevation

(mASL)

Existing

X

(m)

Y

(m)

2034

J-930 194.6 470134.2 4925411.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-935 197.9 468462.2 4920565.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.631 0.369

J-940 197.8 468670.8 4920932.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 1.219

J-945 214.0 469997.6 4920580.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 1.371 0.369

J-950 186.3 469717.7 4925646.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 2.639

J-955 198.0 472138.7 4929160.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-960 187.2 469839.4 4924890.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-965 185.0 469412.9 4923656.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-970 194.5 470226.9 4925558.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-975 202.0 469851.4 4921771.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-980 195.0 468573.9 4921458.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-985 188.3 469958.0 4925098.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-990 195.0 470113.0 4924776.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-995 189.7 470838.0 4927272.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1000 196.1 468404.8 4921202.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1005 216.0 469643.2 4919839.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1010 201.0 469632.6 4921418.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1015 200.0 468125.6 4919480.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1020 200.0 468067.6 4919534.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1025 181.0 471544.4 4929269.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1030 196.8 471903.2 4928793.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1035 181.0 467765.2 4922281.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1040 196.0 470383.8 4925088.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1045 201.6 472571.9 4928817.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1050 186.0 469667.8 4925564.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1055 210.2 470142.1 4920909.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1060 210.2 469477.6 4919441.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1065 196.0 468778.9 4921606.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1070 184.0 470875.9 4927340.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1075 199.0 469181.0 4921100.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1080 191.2 471045.9 4927557.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1085 187.4 470680.6 4927360.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1090 187.4 470669.4 4927368.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1095 186.4 470328.6 4927072.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1100 195.6 470589.9 4925720.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1105 194.0 470088.8 4925329.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1110 189.2 470796.5 4927574.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369


of 10

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Ultimate

Model

Junction

Elevation

(mASL)

Existing

X

(m)

Y

(m)

2034

J-1115 181.0 466287.3 4919096.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1120 202.3 469076.8 4920204.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1125 205.5 469949.5 4921150.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1130 195.0 470330.3 4924942.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1135 196.2 470396.1 4924967.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 1.941 0.369

J-1140 179.2 468032.5 4921173.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 3.749

J-1145 184.2 470707.6 4927434.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1150 185.2 469755.1 4926050.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1155 196.0 468055.6 4920378.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1160 196.0 468011.4 4920305.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1165 198.0 468283.6 4920258.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1170 186.6 470537.5 4927443.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1175 178.5 464999.7 4918804.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1180 180.0 465069.2 4918747.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1185 195.0 468700.0 4921650.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1190 188.1 470261.9 4926629.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1195 195.7 468459.0 4921288.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1200 182.7 466762.1 4919275.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1205 210.5 470188.8 4920990.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1210 197.0 468950.9 4921443.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1215 192.4 468247.5 4920932.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1220 196.0 468300.9 4921015.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1225 183.0 466644.7 4919123.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1230 177.0 464400.1 4918773.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1235 176.0 464337.3 4918851.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1240 202.1 469088.9 4920450.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1245 189.8 470731.8 4927083.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1250 203.0 468251.8 4919035.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1255 203.7 469396.9 4920518.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1260 203.2 469341.8 4920421.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1265 199.0 469239.6 4921202.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1270 205.0 470237.6 4922158.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1275 216.0 469766.6 4920181.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1280 195.0 470262.3 4925047.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1285 180.6 466810.9 4919511.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1290 183.0 466921.6 4919447.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1295 183.0 467214.9 4919750.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369


of 10

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Ultimate

Model

Junction

Elevation

(mASL)

Existing

X

(m)

Y

(m)

2034

J-1300 181.5 465195.0 4918688.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1305 205.0 470201.9 4922092.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 1.371 0.369

J-1310 182.3 471016.7 4928525.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 2.639

J-1315 181.3 469578.8 4925712.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1320 187.8 470564.8 4927176.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1325 182.0 465228.3 4918536.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1330 188.4 470465.5 4926996.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1335 205.3 469245.6 4919992.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1340 193.4 470532.4 4926716.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1345 184.1 468141.5 4921895.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1350 194.9 471458.2 4927708.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1355 195.0 468810.5 4921848.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1360 189.7 470627.0 4926903.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1365 184.8 466743.2 4919069.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1370 200.0 469176.6 4921451.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1375 197.0 468980.3 4921528.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1380 183.0 467519.4 4920023.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1385 206.5 469900.9 4920941.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1390 206.2 469943.7 4921022.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1395 205.5 469997.0 4921114.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1400 202.1 469138.6 4920539.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1405 180.0 469024.4 4924311.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1410 196.0 470249.1 4924663.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1415 188.4 470051.4 4926026.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1420 197.9 468615.7 4920836.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1425 183.0 467908.2 4920528.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1430 197.0 469071.4 4921757.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1435 193.0 466373.4 4918577.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1440 197.8 468153.6 4920029.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 2.391 0.369

J-1445 203.0 468098.3 4918770.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 4.609

J-1450 197.0 470858.2 4925568.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1455 198.0 470546.6 4924502.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1460 200.5 467958.2 4919280.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1465 176.5 467801.9 4922407.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.501 0.369

J-1470 187.7 469955.5 4926320.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.969

J-1475 203.0 471854.3 4926201.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1480 185.9 469135.8 4923335.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.591 0.369


of 10

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Ultimate

Model

Junction

Elevation

(mASL)

Existing

X

(m)

Y

(m)

2034

J-1485 180.0 468765.0 4923688.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 1.149

J-1490 197.8 468512.3 4920651.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1495 179.6 466221.3 4919132.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1500 210.0 471283.6 4921708.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1505 193.8 466588.4 4918716.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1510 207.0 469789.2 4920700.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1515 197.8 468568.1 4920748.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1520 178.9 464222.7 4918607.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1525 183.0 464098.9 4918661.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1530 213.0 469521.4 4919903.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 2.261 0.369

J-1535 194.5 466880.0 4918983.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 4.359

J-1540 181.0 464410.7 4918499.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 6.391 0.369

J-1545 201.0 469379.9 4921334.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 12.339

J-1550 201.0 469758.3 4921637.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1555 200.0 467155.2 4919312.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1560 196.5 467418.6 4919164.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1565 205.0 470283.9 4921861.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1570 189.2 470835.9 4927592.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1575 196.0 470358.7 4925080.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1580 186.2 469916.3 4926341.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1585 203.0 470175.3 4922329.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1590 202.4 469184.8 4920394.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1595 204.0 468195.3 4918714.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 4.791 0.369

J-1600 202.0 469994.4 4922024.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 9.249

J-1605 205.0 470122.1 4921952.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1610 204.0 468192.4 4918737.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1615 187.5 470018.0 4926526.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-1620 186.0 469857.8 4926135.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 2.729

JN-5 197.0 469535.1 4922677.8 n/a n/a 1.670 3.200 9.400 17.820

JN-10 208.0 472748.4 4926932.1 n/a n/a 1.670 3.200 9.230 18.150

JN-15 207.0 472221.4 4926001.1 n/a n/a 1.670 3.200 5.230 10.090

JN-20 205.0 471914.3 4925463.1 n/a n/a 1.670 3.200 0.000 0.000

JN-25 205.0 471713.2 4925103.3 n/a n/a 1.670 3.200 6.660 12.860

JN-30 209.0 470579.8 4919430.7 n/a n/a 1.670 3.200 3.280 6.340

JN-35 209.0 467491.3 4917663.4 n/a n/a 1.670 3.200 0.800 1.550

JN-40 199.3 471142.6 4924161.6 n/a n/a 1.670 3.200 8.340 0.930

JN-45 178.7 468258.2 4923401.6 n/a n/a 1.670 3.200 0.480 16.110


of 10

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Ultimate

Model

Junction

Elevation

(mASL)

Existing

X

(m)

Y

(m)

2034

JN-50 210.0 470164.5 4918669.2 n/a n/a 1.670 3.200 3.630 7.000

JN-55 206.9 467713.5 4918049.8 n/a n/a 1.670 3.200 2.300 4.440


of 10

Model Pipe Start Node Stop Node

Diameter

(mm) C-Factor

Length

(m)

P-5 J-225 J-1340 300 120 195

P-10 J-680 J-685 200 110 155

P-15 PRV-1 J-1465 250 110 15

P-20 PRV-2 J-1100 200 110 12

P-25 PRV-3 J-900 200 110 19

P-30 J-1415 PRV-4 200 110 21

P-35 J-1360 J-320 300 120 120

P-40 J-320 J-1340 300 120 98

P-45 J-920 J-330 200 110 296

P-50 J-330 J-1140 200 110 115

P-55 J-925 J-330 400 120 76

P-60 J-245 J-250 150 100 243

P-65 J-65 J-250 150 100 254

P-70 J-360 J-350 150 100 213

P-75 J-1035 J-825 150 100 504

P-80 J-605 J-290 150 100 217

P-85 J-290 J-375 150 100 252

P-90 J-475 J-510 150 100 110

P-95 J-385 J-950 150 100 285

P-100 J-385 J-90 150 100 157

P-105 J-15 J-230 150 100 156

P-110 J-860 J-675 150 100 215

P-115 J-370 J-45 150 100 427

P-120 J-340 J-810 150 100 189

P-125 J-1020 J-340 150 100 381

P-130 J-335 J-1015 150 100 402

P-135 J-940 J-570 150 100 362

P-140 J-30 J-450 150 100 123

P-145 J-450 J-940 150 100 478

P-150 J-570 J-585 150 100 368

P-155 J-825 J-850 150 100 202

P-160 J-215 J-220 150 100 72

P-165 J-100 J-1000 150 100 422

P-170 J-95 J-100 150 100 24

P-175 J-300 J-970 150 100 489

P-180 J-970 J-190 150 100 324

P-185 J-815 J-25 150 100 202

P-190 J-315 J-325 150 100 163

P-195 J-355 J-315 150 100 212

P-200 J-770 J-355 150 100 626

P-205 J-355 J-380 150 100 181

P-210 J-690 J-695 150 100 159

P-215 J-960 J-730 150 100 478

P-220 J-785 J-760 150 100 486

P-225 J-725 J-255 150 100 436

P-230 J-255 J-155 150 100 81

P-235 J-155 J-15 150 100 216

P-240 J-600 J-965 150 100 539

P-245 J-665 J-735 150 100 165

P-250 J-695 J-735 150 100 182

P-255 J-710 J-715 150 100 160

P-260 J-380 J-700 150 100 207

P-265 J-915 J-380 150 100 224

Z:\14007-Saugeen-Shores-Water_and_Sewer_Master_Plan_Update\Projects\WaterCAD\14007-14Aug28

Modelling Design Brief.xls

of 10


Diameter

(mm) C-Factor

Length

(m)

P-270 J-700 J-705 150 100 159

P-275 J-435 J-440 150 100 101

P-280 J-350 J-275 150 100 172

P-285 J-800 J-350 150 100 181

P-290 J-305 J-800 150 100 174

P-295 J-130 J-135 150 100 44

P-300 J-135 J-610 150 100 140

P-305 J-375 J-400 150 100 173

P-310 J-400 J-405 150 100 98

P-315 J-750 J-350 150 100 206

P-320 J-855 J-750 150 100 203

P-325 J-745 J-750 150 100 170

P-330 J-750 J-765 150 100 181

P-335 J-635 J-780 150 100 179

P-340 J-240 J-230 150 100 211

P-345 J-15 J-365 150 100 158

P-350 J-845 J-930 150 100 254

P-355 J-840 J-845 150 100 203

P-360 J-205 J-345 150 100 174

P-365 J-185 J-190 150 100 66

P-370 J-190 J-345 150 100 120

P-375 J-185 J-800 150 100 427

P-380 J-25 J-205 150 100 204

P-385 J-275 J-25 150 100 210

P-390 J-345 J-360 150 100 204

P-395 J-995 J-700 150 100 366

P-400 J-1070 J-705 150 100 378

P-405 J-1030 J-955 150 100 454

P-410 J-955 J-520 150 100 385

P-415 J-520 J-525 150 100 112

P-420 J-165 J-860 150 100 205

P-425 J-665 J-835 150 100 199

P-430 J-635 J-660 150 100 164

P-435 J-660 J-665 150 100 149

P-440 J-645 J-650 150 100 147

P-445 J-660 J-805 150 100 187

P-450 J-735 J-690 150 100 338

P-455 J-690 J-680 150 100 177

P-460 J-315 J-700 150 100 179

P-465 J-150 J-515 150 100 486

P-470 J-515 J-535 150 100 126

P-475 J-605 J-65 150 100 212

P-480 J-975 J-910 150 100 329

P-485 J-625 J-285 150 100 378

P-490 J-465 J-400 150 100 124

P-495 J-935 J-555 150 100 353

P-500 J-455 J-445 150 100 473

P-505 J-1000 J-455 150 100 364

P-510 J-390 J-395 150 100 96

P-515 J-395 J-455 150 100 102

P-520 J-560 J-565 150 100 114

P-525 J-565 J-390 150 100 361

P-530 J-590 J-595 150 100 128



of 10


Diameter

(mm) C-Factor

Length

(m)

P-535 J-605 J-270 150 100 250

P-540 J-480 J-270 150 100 120

P-545 J-270 J-375 150 100 190

P-550 J-160 J-165 150 100 64

P-555 J-490 J-495 150 100 111

P-560 J-160 J-865 150 100 204

P-565 J-160 J-55 150 100 182

P-570 J-55 J-165 150 100 143

P-575 J-220 J-175 150 100 500

P-580 J-225 J-260 150 100 154

P-585 J-500 J-505 150 100 110

P-590 J-555 J-140 150 100 248

P-595 J-140 J-145 150 100 46

P-600 J-480 J-485 150 100 110

P-605 J-195 J-480 150 100 334

P-610 J-1615 J-210 150 100 72

P-615 J-210 J-240 150 100 79

P-620 J-230 J-200 150 100 206

P-625 J-200 J-310 150 100 208

P-630 J-195 J-1010 150 100 369

P-635 J-445 J-450 150 100 101

P-640 J-980 J-420 150 100 633

P-645 J-110 J-980 150 100 338

P-650 J-175 J-180 150 100 66

P-655 J-985 J-990 150 100 419

P-660 J-765 J-800 150 100 207

P-665 J-915 J-765 150 100 405

P-670 J-390 J-180 150 100 359

P-675 J-920 J-925 150 100 234

P-680 J-765 J-770 150 100 178

P-685 J-695 J-650 150 100 326

P-690 J-650 J-660 150 100 177

P-695 J-245 J-755 150 100 172

P-700 J-35 J-265 150 100 164

P-705 J-265 J-245 150 100 91

P-710 J-195 J-575 150 100 116

P-715 J-285 J-370 150 100 142

P-720 J-280 J-285 150 100 84

P-725 J-50 J-370 150 100 96

P-730 J-465 J-630 150 100 142

P-735 J-400 J-470 150 100 208

P-740 J-465 J-475 150 100 214

P-745 J-410 J-415 150 100 101

P-750 J-505 J-580 150 100 253

P-755 J-580 J-1335 150 100 199

P-760 J-545 J-550 150 100 113

P-765 J-550 J-170 150 100 250

P-770 J-170 J-775 150 100 244

P-775 J-120 J-125 150 100 44

P-780 J-125 J-1005 150 100 511

P-785 J-465 J-460 150 100 120

P-790 J-535 J-540 150 100 113

P-795 J-295 J-5 150 100 99



of 10


Diameter

(mm) C-Factor

Length

(m)

P-800 J-530 J-425 150 100 112

P-805 J-425 J-430 150 100 101

P-810 J-870 J-875 150 100 208

P-815 J-790 J-20 150 100 180

P-820 J-655 J-85 150 100 382

P-825 J-290 J-35 150 100 211

P-830 J-615 J-185 150 100 137

P-835 J-335 J-340 150 100 87

P-840 J-880 J-775 150 100 208

P-845 J-125 J-1005 150 100 415

P-850 J-365 J-240 150 100 199

P-855 J-40 J-240 150 100 212

P-860 J-165 J-235 150 100 156

P-865 J-955 J-1045 150 100 675

P-870 J-825 J-830 150 100 238

P-875 J-20 J-60 150 100 330

P-880 J-60 J-525 150 100 370

P-885 J-895 J-520 150 100 440

P-890 J-105 J-1570 150 100 47

P-895 J-850 J-220 150 100 251

P-900 J-220 J-100 150 100 248

P-905 J-580 J-170 150 100 116

P-910 J-755 J-910 150 100 220

P-915 J-1275 J-720 150 100 108

P-920 J-65 J-35 150 100 243

P-925 J-515 J-410 150 100 111

P-930 J-310 J-80 150 100 302

P-935 J-200 J-155 150 100 153

P-940 J-40 J-670 150 100 154

P-945 J-635 J-640 150 100 142

P-950 J-770 J-305 150 100 206

P-955 J-360 J-25 150 100 174

P-960 J-675 J-40 150 100 203

P-965 J-260 J-675 150 100 157

P-970 J-905 J-1385 200 110 225

P-975 J-1390 J-1055 200 110 229

P-980 J-905 J-1055 200 110 92

P-985 J-265 J-1125 200 110 68

P-990 J-1205 J-1395 200 110 229

P-995 J-1205 J-1395 200 110 383

P-1000 J-1210 J-1265 200 110 394

P-1005 J-1375 J-1430 200 110 247

P-1010 J-1265 J-1075 200 110 118

P-1015 J-215 J-1345 200 110 565

P-1020 J-425 J-1260 200 110 118

P-1025 J-425 J-510 200 110 242

P-1030 J-510 J-1275 200 110 127

P-1035 J-1185 J-1355 200 110 226

P-1040 J-110 J-1075 200 110 368

P-1045 J-565 J-1075 200 110 101

P-1050 J-310 J-90 200 110 165

P-1055 J-255 J-620 200 110 163

P-1060 J-1330 J-1095 200 110 159



of 10


Diameter

(mm) C-Factor

Length

(m)

P-1065 J-1095 J-860 200 110 156

P-1070 J-860 J-865 200 110 94

P-1075 J-1220 J-1420 200 110 362

P-1080 J-950 J-1050 200 110 97

P-1085 J-740 J-80 200 110 622

P-1090 J-1480 J-1485 200 110 537

P-1095 J-625 J-1440 200 110 271

P-1100 J-625 J-335 200 110 94

P-1105 J-1215 J-1220 200 110 103

P-1110 J-1220 J-570 200 110 114

P-1115 J-1000 J-1195 200 110 102

P-1120 J-570 J-1000 200 110 103

P-1125 J-1370 J-1375 200 110 214

P-1130 J-1375 J-1065 200 110 218

P-1135 J-1065 J-1185 200 110 91

P-1140 J-1355 J-1065 200 110 313

P-1145 J-580 J-1060 200 110 532

P-1150 J-1155 J-1165 200 110 258

P-1155 J-1165 J-280 200 110 300

P-1160 J-1155 J-820 200 110 254

P-1165 J-1425 J-920 200 110 303

P-1170 J-1425 J-1380 200 110 657

P-1175 J-130 J-1250 200 110 122

P-1180 J-1460 J-1250 200 110 460

P-1185 J-1230 J-1235 200 110 104

P-1190 J-1175 J-1180 200 110 94

P-1195 J-1300 J-1325 200 110 198

P-1200 J-1225 J-1200 200 110 192

P-1205 J-1115 J-1365 200 110 579

P-1210 J-1365 J-1200 200 110 303

P-1215 J-1200 J-1290 200 110 360

P-1220 J-1495 J-1285 200 110 905

P-1225 J-1285 J-1290 200 110 128

P-1230 J-1445 J-1250 200 110 306

P-1235 J-1500 J-1270 200 110 1247

P-1240 J-590 J-595 200 110 122

P-1245 J-815 J-590 200 110 84

P-1250 J-1315 J-90 200 110 297

P-1255 J-90 J-1150 200 110 90

P-1260 PRV-3 J-915 200 110 184

P-1265 J-900 J-680 200 110 431

P-1270 J-70 J-1450 200 110 130

P-1275 J-785 J-960 200 110 178

P-1280 J-840 J-985 200 110 217

P-1285 J-725 J-80 200 110 83

P-1290 J-705 J-325 200 110 180

P-1295 J-685 J-695 200 110 188

P-1300 J-855 J-1340 200 110 176

P-1305 J-1340 J-745 200 110 207

P-1310 J-1190 J-745 200 110 196

P-1315 J-670 J-1190 200 110 159

P-1320 PRV-2 J-615 200 110 36

P-1325 J-1410 J-1455 200 110 342



of 10


Diameter

(mm) C-Factor

Length

(m)

P-1330 J-1105 J-1050 200 110 482

P-1335 J-1085 J-1090 200 110 13

P-1340 J-1085 J-995 200 110 181

P-1345 J-1070 J-995 200 110 78

P-1350 J-140 J-540 200 110 106

P-1355 J-540 J-1240 200 110 107

P-1360 J-1360 J-915 200 110 369

P-1365 J-715 J-1475 200 110 506

P-1370 J-900 J-715 200 110 364

P-1375 J-385 J-1620 200 110 321

P-1380 J-1260 J-1400 200 110 235

P-1385 J-820 J-10 200 110 277

P-1390 J-1420 J-1400 200 110 601

P-1395 J-395 J-1195 200 110 360

P-1400 J-980 J-1185 200 110 233

P-1405 J-595 J-275 200 110 197

P-1410 J-670 J-260 200 110 207

P-1415 J-1290 J-1295 200 110 477

P-1420 J-1295 J-1380 200 110 418

P-1425 J-610 J-545 200 110 728

P-1430 J-545 J-45 200 110 23

P-1435 J-1095 J-235 200 110 205

P-1440 J-1490 J-540 200 110 608

P-1445 J-500 J-490 200 110 211

P-1450 J-490 J-140 200 110 106

P-1455 J-585 J-95 200 110 118

P-1460 J-20 J-875 200 110 104

P-1465 J-55 J-1170 200 110 172

P-1470 J-1170 J-1090 200 110 152

P-1475 J-745 J-275 200 110 212

P-1480 J-235 J-1320 200 110 155

P-1485 J-85 J-105 200 110 257

P-1490 J-670 J-1615 200 110 211

P-1495 J-175 J-980 200 110 51

P-1500 J-180 J-1195 200 110 92

P-1505 J-950 J-930 200 110 478

P-1510 J-555 J-50 200 110 125

P-1515 J-145 J-1120 200 110 69

P-1520 J-1120 J-410 200 110 121

P-1525 J-410 J-1335 200 110 226

P-1530 J-30 J-1255 200 110 236

P-1535 J-1255 J-530 200 110 120

P-1540 J-530 J-470 200 110 125

P-1545 J-475 J-720 200 110 125

P-1550 J-470 J-475 200 110 119

P-1555 J-1255 J-1260 200 110 112

P-1560 J-1505 J-1435 200 110 257

P-1565 J-1310 J-870 200 110 323

P-1570 J-870 J-790 200 110 112

P-1575 J-790 J-1025 200 110 506

P-1580 J-1310 J-795 200 110 275

P-1585 J-890 J-795 200 110 580

P-1590 J-885 J-890 200 110 452



of 10


Diameter

(mm) C-Factor

Length

(m)

P-1595 J-1090 J-1145 200 110 76

P-1600 J-1330 J-1360 200 110 187

P-1605 J-1410 J-1130 200 110 535

P-1610 J-1130 J-1280 200 110 132

P-1615 J-930 J-1105 200 110 94

P-1620 J-1105 J-840 200 110 48

P-1625 J-1055 J-1205 200 110 93

P-1630 J-45 J-500 200 110 84

P-1635 J-1160 J-1155 200 110 85

P-1640 J-1355 J-420 200 110 179

P-1645 J-1170 J-235 200 110 221

P-1650 J-1245 J-1360 200 110 208

P-1655 J-815 PRV-4 200 110 252

P-1660 J-1060 J-120 200 110 56

P-1665 J-1425 J-1160 200 110 318

P-1670 J-1180 J-1300 200 110 177

P-1675 J-1300 J-1180 200 110 317

P-1680 J-1465 J-830 200 110 511

P-1685 J-655 J-1350 200 110 222

P-1690 J-1350 J-1030 200 110 1291

P-1695 J-1030 J-895 200 110 104

P-1700 J-895 J-60 200 110 86

P-1705 J-1080 J-655 200 110 219

P-1710 J-885 J-105 200 110 335

P-1715 J-1110 J-105 200 110 51

P-1720 J-95 J-850 200 110 364

P-1725 J-1140 J-585 200 110 122

P-1730 J-1140 J-1220 200 110 313

P-1735 J-80 J-1315 200 110 166

P-1740 J-1315 J-950 200 110 159

P-1745 J-1130 J-1135 200 110 70

P-1750 J-985 J-785 200 110 62

P-1755 J-930 J-970 200 110 175

P-1760 J-260 J-1095 200 110 211

P-1765 J-995 J-1245 200 110 217

P-1770 J-1350 J-1045 200 110 1635

P-1775 J-1495 J-1175 250 110 1429

P-1780 J-1230 J-1520 250 110 251

P-1785 J-1520 J-1525 250 110 147

P-1790 J-1115 J-1495 250 110 75

P-1795 J-1270 J-1305 250 110 75

P-1800 J-1510 J-405 250 110 48

P-1805 J-1335 J-415 250 110 132

P-1810 J-415 J-495 250 110 120

P-1815 J-455 J-940 250 110 101

P-1820 J-940 J-1420 250 110 111

P-1825 J-1420 J-1515 250 110 100

P-1830 J-1515 J-1490 250 110 112

P-1835 J-10 J-1165 250 110 245

P-1840 J-935 J-10 250 110 111

P-1845 J-1490 J-935 250 110 99

P-1850 J-110 J-390 250 110 104

P-1855 J-1465 J-1035 250 110 132



of 10


Diameter

(mm) C-Factor

Length

(m)

P-1860 J-110 J-1210 250 110 183

P-1865 J-1010 J-1550 250 110 253

P-1870 J-1370 J-1545 250 110 234

P-1875 J-630 J-945 250 110 119

P-1880 J-1510 J-630 250 110 121

P-1885 J-1005 J-295 250 110 154

P-1890 J-1005 J-1530 250 110 138

P-1895 J-945 J-460 250 110 142

P-1900 J-75 J-150 250 110 110

P-1905 J-1110 J-1145 250 110 166

P-1910 J-730 J-740 250 110 58

P-1915 J-1535 J-1365 250 110 162

P-1920 J-1540 J-1520 250 110 217

P-1925 J-1225 J-1115 250 110 431

P-1930a JN-45 PRV-1 250 110 1111

P-1930b J-1485 JN-45 250 110 652

P-1935 J-810 J-1440 250 110 94

P-1940 J-150 J-295 250 110 34

P-1945 J-1510 J-1385 250 110 269

P-1950 J-740 J-760 250 110 120

P-1955 J-760 J-1050 250 110 327

P-1960 J-1405 J-730 250 110 1099

P-1965 J-600 J-1405 250 110 457

P-1970 J-1485 J-600 250 110 367

P-1975 J-1440 J-1165 250 110 263

P-1980 J-1020 J-1460 250 110 281

P-1985 J-1015 J-1020 250 110 80

P-1990 J-1210 J-1375 250 110 90

P-1995 J-1015 J-610 250 110 361

P-2000 J-1560 J-1555 250 110 303

P-2005 J-1555 J-1290 250 110 270

P-2010 J-1555 J-1535 250 110 430

P-2015 J-1535 J-1505 250 110 398

P-2020 J-1365 J-1225 250 110 112

P-2025 J-1175 J-1230 250 110 664

P-2030 J-1125 J-1395 300 120 59

P-2035 J-1390 J-1385 300 120 92

P-2040 J-1395 J-1390 300 120 106

P-2045 J-445 J-560 300 120 194

P-2050 J-1160 J-1560 300 120 1313

P-2055 J-1445 J-1595 300 120 112

P-2060 J-1125 J-1565 300 120 956

P-2065 J-1565 J-1270 300 120 408

P-2070 J-1270 J-1585 300 120 258

P-2075 J-1585 J-1600 300 120 355

P-2080 J-440 J-1100 300 120 428

P-2085 J-900 J-440 300 120 610

P-2090 J-1470 J-1580 300 120 45

P-2095 J-1320 J-1330 300 120 206

P-2100 J-1570 J-1085 300 120 295

P-2105 J-1400 J-30 300 120 109

P-2110 J-1240 J-1400 300 120 101

P-2115 J-30 J-485 300 120 102



of 10


Diameter

(mm) C-Factor

Length

(m)

P-2120 J-1120 J-495 300 120 101

P-2125 J-535 J-1120 300 120 111

P-2130 J-1590 J-535 300 120 107

P-2135 J-485 J-445 300 120 128

P-2140 J-1600 J-1605 300 120 146

P-2145 J-1565 J-910 300 120 292

P-2150 J-595 J-1190 300 120 206

P-2155 J-1190 J-225 300 120 210

P-2160 J-1570 J-1080 300 120 231

P-2165 J-975 J-1550 300 120 178

P-2170 J-1470 J-595 300 120 307

P-2175 J-1545 J-575 300 120 210

P-2180 J-575 J-560 300 120 237

P-2185 J-1545 J-1010 300 120 373

P-2190 J-1605 J-1565 300 120 186

P-2195 J-1600 J-975 300 120 291

P-2200 J-1605 J-1305 300 120 161

P-2205 J-550 J-880 300 120 250

P-2210 J-495 J-505 300 120 209

P-2215 J-505 J-550 300 120 106

P-2220 J-880 J-115 300 120 607

P-2225 J-135 J-115 300 120 166

P-2230 J-70 J-1040 300 120 699

P-2235 J-1330 J-225 300 120 209

P-2240 J-1090 J-1320 300 120 219

P-2245 J-1040 J-1575 300 120 26

P-2250 J-1610 J-115 300 120 530

P-2255 J-1580 J-1150 350 120 333

P-2260 J-1615 J-1580 350 120 211

P-2265 J-1135 J-1455 400 120 489

P-2270 J-1415 J-1575 400 120 998

P-2280 J-1515 J-1215 400 120 370

P-2285 J-1240 J-1515 400 120 600

P-2290 J-1590 J-1240 400 120 111

P-2295 J-75 J-1275 400 120 106

P-2300 J-1275 T-PE 400 120 129

P-2305 J-75 J-430 400 120 374

P-2310 J-1215 J-925 400 120 191

P-2315 J-430 J-1590 400 120 241

P-2320 J-1575 J-1135 400 120 119

P-2325A J-1455 JN-40 500 120 716

P-2325B JN-40 J-1585 500 120 2088

P-2330 J-70 J-1100 300 120 179

P-2335 J-1620 J-1470 200 110 209

P-2340 PMP-PE J-1415 400 120 428

P-2345 J-1320 J-1245 200 110 191

P-NC J-1040 J-300 150 100 10

PN-5 JN-45 JN-5 200 110 1468

PN-10 JN-5 J-1585 200 110 729

PN-15 JN-10 J-780 300 120 746

PN-20 JN-10 JN-15 300 120 1070

PN-25 JN-15 J-1475 150 100 418

PN-30 JN-15 JN-20 300 120 619



of 10


Diameter

(mm) C-Factor

Length

(m)

PN-35 JN-20 J-435 150 100 1182

PN-40 JN-20 JN-25 300 120 412

PN-45 JN-25 J-1450 150 100 973

PN-50 J-5 JN-30 300 120 960

PN-55 J-1560 J-1445 300 120 785

PN-60 J-1445 JN-55 300 120 817

PN-65 JN-40 JN-25 300 120 1101

PN-70 JN-5 J-1430 200 110 1030

PN-75 JN-30 JN-50 300 120 867

PN-80 JN-55 JN-35 300 120 446

PN-85 J-1505 JN-55 250 110 1308

PPEa WTP PMP-PE 400 120 10

PSHa WTP PMP-SH 200 110 10

PSHb PMP-SH J-1150 200 110 50

PT-SH J-320 T-SH 300 120 10



Pump Definition Detailed Report: PORT ELGIN

Element Details

1364ID Notes

PORT ELGINLabel

Pump Definition Type

Design Point (1 Point)

Pump Definition Typem80.00Design Head

L/s0.000Shutoff Flow L/s0.000Maximum Operating Flow

m0.00Shutoff Head m0.00Maximum Operating Head

L/s108.000Design Flow

Pump Efficiency Type

Best Efficiency

PointPump Efficiency Type

%100.0Motor Efficiency

%100.0BEP Efficiency FalseIs Variable Speed Drive?

L/s0.000BEP Flow

Transient (Physical)

kg·m²0.000Inertia (Pump and Motor) SI=25, US=1280

Specific Speed

rpm0Speed (Full) TrueReverse Spin Allowed?

Page 1 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666

2014-09-26

Bentley WaterCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4)[08.11.04.50]

Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center14007-Base Future.wtg


Graph

Head (

m)

125.00

112.50

100.00

87.50

75.00

62.50

50.00

37.50

25.00

12.50

0.00

Pum

p E

fficie

ncy (%

)

125.0

112.5

100.0

87.5

75.0

62.5

50.0

37.5

25.0

12.5

0.0

Flow (L/s)

200.000175.000150.000125.000100.00075.00050.00025.0000.000


2014-09-26



Pump Definition Detailed Report: SOUTHAMPTON

Element Details

1363ID Notes

SOUTHAMPTON

Label








Best Efficiency




L/s0.000BEP Flow



Specific Speed



2014-09-26




Graph

Head (

m)

75.00

68.75

62.50

56.25

50.00

43.75

37.50

31.25

25.00

18.75

12.50

6.25

0.00

Pum

p E

fficie

ncy (%

)

125.0

112.5

100.0

87.5

75.0

62.5

50.0

37.5

25.0

12.5

0.0

Flow (L/s)

200.000175.000150.000125.000100.00075.00050.00025.0000.000


2014-09-26



FlexTable: Reservoir Table

Current Time: 0.000 hours

Elevation

(m)

Label

185.00WTP


2014-09-26



FlexTable: Tank Table


Elevation

(Maximum)

(m)

Elevation

(Minimum)

(m)

Elevation (Base)

(m)

Label

230.70192.91192.90T-SH

251.00218.01218.00T-PE


2014-09-26



of 10

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

Average Day

Demand

(L/s)

Maximum

Day Demand

(L/s)

J-5 216.0 469773.9 4919950.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-10 198.2 468406.1 4920470.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-15 181.3 469646.9 4926496.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-20 183.0 471432.6 4928860.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-25 193.4 470226.5 4926166.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-30 201.8 469191.9 4920633.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-35 204.7 469813.6 4921048.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-40 183.5 469991.5 4926785.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-45 202.0 468784.7 4919920.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-50 199.2 468705.7 4920282.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-55 181.7 470366.7 4927450.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-60 187.9 471750.1 4928906.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-65 202.3 469602.8 4921168.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-70 193.4 470743.5 4925629.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 1.411 0.369

J-75 216.0 469719.6 4920089.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-80 180.5 469433.3 4925793.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-85 188.8 471028.9 4927760.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-90 185.2 469720.5 4925973.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-95 180.0 468013.5 4921410.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.291 0.559

J-100 180.0 468036.8 4921409.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-105 189.2 470821.7 4927617.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.291 0.569

J-110 198.0 468862.0 4921284.3 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-115 203.6 468484.1 4919084.4 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-120 211.6 469527.5 4919455.7 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.581 1.119

J-125 210.5 469562.7 4919481.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-130 203.0 468316.7 4919126.1 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-135 201.6 468338.8 4919164.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-140 201.7 468983.0 4920265.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-145 202.0 469023.5 4920243.0 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-150 215.8 469665.3 4920000.5 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-155 181.7 469543.3 4926306.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-160 181.7 470237.7 4927358.6 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-165 183.1 470293.7 4927328.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-170 206.7 469088.4 4919718.9 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-175 195.0 468533.6 4921427.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-180 195.4 468504.4 4921368.2 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

J-185 195.9 470428.9 4925810.8 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369 0.191 0.369

Ultimate

Model

Junction

Elevation

(mASL)

Existing

X

(m)

Y

(m)

2034
