ClassEA MidHalton ESR Final

Mid Halton Wastewater (Sewage) Treatment Plant
Phase IV & V Expansion

Class Environmental Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT
Prepared for:
The Regional Municipality of Halton
1151 Bronte Road
Oakville, Ontario
L6M 3L1
Project #: PR-2583A
Prepared by:
Hatch Mott MacDonald Group
5420 North Service Road, Suite 200
Burlington, Ontario
L7L 6C7
April 2010
Regional Municipality of Halton

Mid-Halton Waste Water Treatment Plant
(Sewage Treatment Plant)
Phase IV & V Expansion Class EA

Halton Region Project # PR-2583A
HMM Project # 250101
Table of Contents
GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................GOT 1-6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ES 1- 17
1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
OBJECTIVES OF THE ESR .....................................................................................1

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT..............................................................2
1.2.1
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.4
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT (CEAA) AND POSSIBLE CEAA TRIGGERS .................. 5
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESAS)............................ 5
INTAKE PROTECTION ZONES ......................................................................................... 6
EA PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS .................................................................................7
STUDY APPROACH ..................................................................................... 7

2.1
CLASS EA PHASES 1 AND 2 MASTER PLAN REVIEW ....................................................7
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.2
2.3
PHASE 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................... 7

PHASE 2 PREFERRED SOLUTION TO EXPAND MID-HALTON WWTP (SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT)....... 8
PUBLIC CONSULTATION DURING THE MASTER PLAN REVIEW ..................................................... 8
CLASS EA PHASES 3 AND 4 ..................................................................................9
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS .................................................................. 2
PLANNING POLICIES, ACTS AND REGULATIONS ............................................................5
STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................... 9

PHASE 3 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR PREFERRED SOLUTION .................................... 10
PHASE 4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT (ESR) ........................................................... 11
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM ........................................................... 12
OVERVIEW OF WWTP EXPANSION REQUIREMENTS........................................ 13

3.1
MID-HALTON WWTP INFORMATION ...................................................................... 13
3.1.1
EXISTING CONDITIONS (PHASE III EXPANSION TO 75 MLD)................................................. 13
3.1.1.1
LOCATION OF THE MID-HALTON WWTP (SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT)............................... 13
3.1.1.2
EXISTING SITE LAYOUT ...................................................................................... 14
3.1.1.3
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TREATMENT PROCESSES ..................................................... 15
3.1.1.4
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE EXISTING PLANT .............................................................. 19
3.1.1.5
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND FLOWS ............................................................ 20
3.1.1.6
EXISTING PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA ..................................................................... 21
3.1.1.7
EXISTING BIOSOLIDS GENERATION RATES ................................................................ 21
3.1.1.8
ODOUR CONTROL ............................................................................................ 22
3.1.1.9
MOE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL .......................................................................... 22
3.1.2
PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR EXPANDED MID-HALTON WWTP (PHASE IV AND V EXPANSION) .... 22
3.1.2.1
FLOW BASIS .................................................................................................. 22
3.1.2.2
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND MASS LOADINGS ................................................ 24
3.1.2.3
EFFLUENT CRITERIA .......................................................................................... 26
3.1.2.4
BIOSOLIDS GENERATION RATE ............................................................................. 26
3.1.2.5
ODOUR CONTROL ............................................................................................ 27
3.2
3.3
RECEIVING WATER ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 27

SOCIO-ECONOMIC, NATURAL HERITAGE, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENTS 30
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.4
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 30

NATURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 32
STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 34
CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... 35
GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION .............................................................................. 37
EFFLUENT SEWER ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... 39

4.1
4.2
FLOW ATTENUATION STUDY ................................................................................ 39

EFFLUENT OUTFALL AND DIFFUSER ........................................................................ 41
4.2.1
EFFLUENT OUTFALL ................................................................................................. 41
4.2.1.1
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURE ................................................................... 41
4.2.1.2
DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 42
4.2.1.3
OUTFALL ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 42


4.2.1.4
EVALUATION OF OUTFALL ALTERNATIVES .................................................................. 43
4.2.1.5
PROPOSED EFFLUENT OUTFALL DESIGN CONCEPT ........................................................ 44
4.2.1.6
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................................... 44
4.2.2
DIFFUSER ............................................................................................................ 44
4.2.2.1
DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 44
4.2.2.2
PROPOSED DIFFUSER DESIGN CONCEPT ................................................................... 45
4.2.2.3
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................................... 45
4.3
EFFLUENT SEWER ROUTING ................................................................................. 46
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
4.3.7
4.4
SHAFT SITES .................................................................................................. 57
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
POINT)
4.4.5
PLANT
5.1
EXISTING PROCESS DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 71

DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 71
EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................ 72
EVALUATION OF EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 72
PROPOSED GRIT REMOVAL DESIGN CONCEPT ................................................................... 73
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................ 73
PRIMARY TREATMENT ........................................................................................ 73
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.4.6
5.5

DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 70
PROPOSED SCREENING DESIGN CONCEPT ....................................................................... 71
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (ODOUR CONTROL) ..................................................... 71
GRIT REMOVAL ............................................................................................... 71
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.3.6
5.4

DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 67
PROPOSED DESIGN CONCEPT ...................................................................................... 68
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (ODOUR CONTROL) ..................................................... 68
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT / SCREENING .................................................................. 69
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.2.6
5.3
DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 57

SHAFT SITE ALTERNATIVES (PLANT SITE, MIDWAY, AND SHORELINE) ........................................ 57
EVALUATION OF SHAFT SITE ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 61
PROPOSED SHAFT SITES (CORONATION PARK, BRONTE STATION, MID-HALTON SITE, AND MAINTENANCE ACCESS
63
ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 64
NORTH PUMPING STATION .................................................................................. 66
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.1.5
5.1.6
5.2
EXISTING EFFLUENT DISCHARGE ROUTE ......................................................................... 46

DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 47
ROUTING ALTERNATIVES (LONG AND SHORT LIST) .............................................................. 47
OPEN-TRENCH VS. TUNNELLING ................................................................................... 50
EVALUATION OF ROUTING ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 53
PROPOSED EFFLUENT SEWER ROUTE ............................................................................. 56

DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 74
PROPOSED PRIMARY TREATMENT DESIGN CONCEPT ............................................................ 76
SECONDARY TREATMENT .................................................................................... 76
5.5.1
5.5.2
DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 77
5.5.3
5.5.4
5.5.5
PROPOSED SECONDARY TREATMENT DESIGN CONCEPT......................................................... 83
5.5.5.1
ADDITIONAL TRUCK TRAFFIC ............................................................................... 84
5.5.6
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL ............................................................................................ 84
5.5.6.1
EXISTING PROCESS DESCRIPTION.......................................................................... 84


5.5.6.2
DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 84
5.5.6.3
EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................. 84
5.5.6.4
EVALUATION OF PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 85
5.5.6.5
PROPOSED PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL DESIGN CONCEPT ................................................... 86
5.5.7
5.6
DISINFECTION ................................................................................................ 87
5.6.1
5.6.2
DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 87
5.6.3
DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 87
5.6.4
EVALUATION OF DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES .................................................................. 88
5.6.5
PROPOSED DISINFECTION DESIGN CONCEPT .................................................................... 89
SLUDGE AND BIOSOLIDS ALTERNATIVES ...................................................... 89
6.1
WAS THICKENING ........................................................................................... 89
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.2
SLUDGE DIGESTION ......................................................................................... 90
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.2.4
6.3
7
8

DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 90
PROPOSED WAS THICKENING DESIGN CONCEPT ............................................................... 90
DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 91
PROPOSED SLUDGE DIGESTION DESIGN CONCEPT .............................................................. 92
IMPACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................. 92
BIOSOLIDS DEWATERING ................................................................................... 92
6.3.1
6.3.2
DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 93
6.3.3
PROPOSED SLUDGE BIOSOLIDS DEWATERING DESIGN CONCEPT ............................................. 93
6.3.4
ODOUR CONTROL .................................................................................... 93
PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONSULTATION .......................................................... 93
8.1
PUBLIC CONSULTATION OVERVIEW ........................................................................ 94
8.1.1
8.1.2
8.1.3
8.1.4
8.1.5
8.1.6
8.1.7
8.1.8
8.1.9
8.2
AGENCY CONSULTATION PROCESS ....................................................................... 100
8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
8.2.5
8.2.6
8.2.7
8.2.8
8.2.9
8.2.10
8.2.11
8.3
NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT ....................................................................................... 94

DIRECT MAILINGS TO STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................ 94
PROJECT WEBSITE .................................................................................................. 95
MOBILE ROADSIDE DISPLAYS ..................................................................................... 95
PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES #1 AND #2 .................................................................... 95
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) ........................................................................ 96
HALTON ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (EEAC) ............................... 97
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ..................................................................................... 97
NOTICE OF COMPLETION ........................................................................................... 99
EXTERNAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (EXTAC) ..................................................... 100
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT (MOE)........................................................... 101
CONSERVATION HALTON (CH) .................................................................................. 101
FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA (DFO)...................................................................... 103
GO TRANSIT/METROLINX ........................................................................................ 104
UNION GAS ........................................................................................................ 104
HYDRO ONE ....................................................................................................... 104
CN RAIL ........................................................................................................... 104
ONTARIO REALTY CORPORATION ................................................................................ 104
TRANSPORTATION CANADA ...................................................................................... 105
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 105
FIRST NATIONS, ABORIGINAL & MTIS CONSULTATION .............................................. 105
9 REVIEW OF POSSIBLE CEAA TRIGGERS FOR RECOMMENDED SOLUTION AND PREFERRED

DESIGN
107
10 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING ....................................................................... 108
10.1
10.2
10.3
DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED DESIGN ................................................................... 108

CAPITAL COST OF PREFERRED DESIGN .................................................................. 109
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .................................................................. 109

10.4
11

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................. 109
10.4.1
GENERAL ........................................................................................................... 109
10.4.2
NOISE AND VIBRATION ........................................................................................... 110
10.4.3
SITE TRAFFIC ...................................................................................................... 110
10.4.4
DUST ............................................................................................................... 111
10.4.5
WASTE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................ 111
10.4.6
ODOUR CONTROL ................................................................................................. 111
10.4.7
RECEIVING WATER QUALITY ..................................................................................... 111
10.4.8
BUFFER DISTANCE FROM COMMUNITY .......................................................................... 113
10.4.9
COMMUNITY IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 113
10.4.10 ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION ........................................................................................ 115
10.4.10.1 EROSION CONTROL ........................................................................................ 115
10.4.10.2 SET-BACK FROM WATERCOURSES ........................................................................ 116
10.4.10.3 LAKEBED FISH HABITAT .................................................................................... 116
MONITORING ....................................................................................... 116
11.1
11.2
RAW SEWAGE AND EFFLUENT MONITORING AND RECORDS .......................................... 116

MONITORING REQUIRED BY DFO/CH ................................................................... 117
12 FUTURE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 117

13 REFERENCES......................................................................................... 119


List of Tables:
TABLE 1.1 EA PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS...............................................................................................7
TABLE 3.1 OVERALL DESIGN FLOW BASIS FOR THE EXISTING MID-HALTON WWTP ......................................... 19
TABLE 3.2 DESIGN FLOW PEAK FACTORS FOR THE MID-HALTON WWTP EXISTING UNIT PROCESSES ..................... 20
TABLE 3.3 DESIGN EFFLUENT QUALITY (OBJECTIVES) FOR THE MID-HALTON WWTP........................................ 20
TABLE 3.4 OVERALL DESIGN FLOW BASIS FOR THE EXISTING MID-HALTON WWTP ......................................... 20
TABLE 3.5 WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS USED FOR EXISTING MID-HALTON WWTP DESIGN .......................... 20
TABLE 3.6 MID-HALTON WWTP EFFLUENT LIMITS ................................................................................ 21
TABLE 3.7 EXISTING PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA .................................................................................. 21
TABLE 3.8 EXISTING BIOSOLIDS GENERATION RATE (1) (AT 75,000 M3/D) ................................................... 22
TABLE 3.9 HISTORIC FLOWS AND PEAK FACTORS (2004-2008) (1) ............................................................ 23
TABLE 3.10 FLOW DESIGN BASIS FOR THE EXPANDED MID-HALTON WWTP(1) ............................................... 23
TABLE 3.11 PEAK FACTOR USED FOR UNIT PROCESS DESIGN (1) ................................................................ 24
TABLE 3.12 HISTORICAL RAW SEWAGE CHARACTERISTICS (2004-2008) .................................................... 24
TABLE 3.13 DESIGN INFLUENT WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS (1) ............................................................. 25
TABLE 3.14 DESIGN EFFLUENT CRITERIA FOR THE MID-HALTON WWTP EXPANSION ........................................ 26
TABLE 3.15 DESIGN BIOSOLIDS GENERATION RATES (1) .......................................................................... 27
TABLE 3.16 TOTAL AMMONIA (MG/L) CALCULATED FROM THE MID-HALTON TAN EFFLUENT LIMITS OR OBJECTIVES AT
THE OAKVILLE AND BURLOAK INTAKES ............................................................................................... 29
TABLE 3.17 IDENTIFIED BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES (BHR) AND CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES (CHL) IN THE
VICINITY OF THE MID-HALTON WWTP STUDY AREA AND POTENTIAL SHAFT SITES ........................................... 35
TABLE 4.1 SCREENING OF OUTFALL ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 43
TABLE 4.2 SCREENING CRITERIA ..................................................................................................... 54
TABLE 4.3 SUMMARY OF SHAFT SITE EVALUATION ................................................................................. 62
TABLE 5.1 EXPANDED WWTP FLOWS ................................................................................................ 65
TABLE 5.2 DESIGN FLOW PEAK FACTORS FOR THE MID-HALTON WWTP EXISTING UNIT PROCESSES ..................... 65
TABLE 5.3 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NORTH PUMPING STATION .................................................................... 67
TABLE 5.4 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SCREENING SYSTEM (FOR PHASE V DESIGN)............................................... 70
TABLE 5.5 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GRIT REMOVAL (FOR PHASE V DESIGN)..................................................... 72
TABLE 5.6 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE PRIMARY CLARIFIERS AT THE MID-HALTON WWTP .................................. 74
TABLE 5.7 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PRIMARY CLARIFIERS (AT PHASE V FLOWS) ................................................ 74
TABLE 5.8 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE NEW PRIMARY CLARIFIERS AT THE MID-HALTON WWTP............................ 76
TABLE 5.9 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT (AT 130,000 M3/D) ............................................. 78
TABLE 5.10 SUMMARY SECONDARY TREATMENT EVALUATION MATRIX .......................................................... 83
TABLE 5.11 COMPARISON OF PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL ALTERNATIVES........................................................... 86
TABLE 5.12 COMPARISON OF DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES...................................................................... 89
TABLE 6.1 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR WAS THICKENING (AT 130,000 M3/D) .................................................... 90
TABLE 6.2 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SLUDGE DIGESTION (AT 130,000 M3/D) .................................................. 91
TABLE 6.3 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR BIOSOLIDS DEWATERING (AT 130,000 M3/D) ............................................ 93
TABLE 8.1 MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE................................................................... 96
TABLE 8.2 CAC MEETINGS AND TOPICS ADDRESSED.............................................................................. 96
TABLE 8.3 CAC CONCERNS AND RESPONSES TO CONCERNS ..................................................................... 97
TABLE 8.4 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ..................................................... 98
TABLE 8.5 CH CONCERNS AND RESPONSES TO CONCERNS ..................................................................... 102
TABLE 11.1 RAW SEWAGE MONITORING .......................................................................................... 116
TABLE 11.2 EFFLUENT MONITORING ............................................................................................... 117


LIST OF FIGURES:
FIGURE 1.1 MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PLANNING AND DESIGN PROCESS .............................................................4
FIGURE 1.2 OUTFALL DIFFUSER LOCATION RELATIVE TO IPZ2 ZONES ...........................................................6
FIGURE 2.1 PLAN OF STUDY AREA .................................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 2.2 MID-HALTON WWTP EXPANSION PHASE IV/V MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OVERALL
DESIGN PROCESS ....................................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 3.1 MID-HALTON WWTP AND SURROUNDING AREA ..................................................................... 14
FIGURE 3.2 EXISTING PHASE III SITE LAYOUT ..................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 3.3 MID-HALTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW SCHEMATIC ............................................... 16
FIGURE 3.4 AERIAL PHOTO OF THE PHASE III EXPANSION IN OCTOBER 2009 ................................................ 18
FIGURE 3.5 EXISTING MID HALTON WWTP SITE PLAN ........................................................................... 19
FIGURE 3.6 EFFLUENT SEWER ROUTES AND PROPOSED SHAFT SITES - SHORT LIST.......................................... 31
FIGURE 4.1 JOINT OAKVILLE SOUTHWEST AND MID-HALTON OUTFALL ......................................................... 42
FIGURE 4.2 PROPOSED OUTFALL & DIFFUSER DETAIL ............................................................................. 45
FIGURE 4.3 EXISTING EFFLUENT SEWER ROUTE .................................................................................... 46
FIGURE 4.4 LONG-LIST OF EFFLUENT SEWER ROUTING ALTERNATIVES ......................................................... 48
FIGURE 4.5 SHORT-LIST OF EFFLUENT SEWER ROUTING ALTERNATIVES ........................................................ 49
FIGURE 4.6 RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT SEWER ROUTE ............................................................................. 50
FIGURE 4.7 OPEN-CUT TRENCHING METHOD ....................................................................................... 51
FIGURE 4.8 TYPICAL EFFLUENT SEWER PROFILE USING OPEN-CUT TRENCH CONSTRUCTION METHOD ..................... 51
FIGURE 4.9 EXAMPLE OF CONSTRUCTION OF A SHAFT ............................................................................. 52
FIGURE 4.10 PREFERRED EFFLUENT SEWER ALIGNMENT, SHAFT SITES AND ALTERNATIVE PROFILES ...................... 56
FIGURE 4.11 CORONATION PARK SHAFT SITE IN CONTEXT ....................................................................... 63
FIGURE 5.1 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT PROCESS ................................................................................... 69
FIGURE 10.1 PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF PLANT SITE SHOWING EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES ....................... 108


Table of Contents for Appendices:

Appendix A Mid-Halton WWTP Certificate of Approval
A1 Mid-Halton WWTP Certificate of Approval
Appendix B Environmental Investigations
B1
Numeric Modelling Approach for Assimilative Capacity Study Technical Memo for MOE
B2
Stage 1 Assimilative Capacity Study
B3
Stage 2 Assimilative Capacity Study
B4
Socio-Economic Inventory and Community Profile
B5
Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of the Mid-Halton WWTP Expansion and Alternative Shaft
Site Locations
B6
Aquafor Beech - Assessment of Potential Shaft Sites
B7
Fish Habitat Assessment
B8
Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment
B9
Cultural Heritage Assessment Report
B10 Geotechnical Technical Memo
B11 Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Appendix C Stakeholder Consultation (Volume I of II Public Consultation)
C1
Public Consultation and Communications Plan
C2
Project Status Appeal Process (Part II Order)
C3
Notice of Commencement
C4
Notice of Completion
C5
Mailing Lists
C6
Public Information Centre #1 May 14, 2009
C7
Public Information Centre #2 October 1, 2009
C8
Citizen Advisory Committee Terms of Reference
C8.1 CAC # 1 February 26, 2009
C8.2 CAC # 2 April 23, 2009
C8.3 CAC # 3 June 25, 2009
C8.4 CAC # 4 September 10, 2009
C8.5 CAC # 5 November 3, 2009
C9
Comments
C10 Responses to Comments
Appendix C Stakeholder Consultation (Volume II of II Agency and First Nations
Consultation)
C11 ExTAC Consultation
C12 MOE Consultation
C13 Conservation Halton Consultation
C14 DFO Consultation
C15 Metrolinx Consultation
C16 Union Gas Consultation
C17 Hydro One Consultation
C18 CN Rail Consultation
C19 Ontario Realty Corporation Consultation
C20 Transport Canada Consultation
C21 MNR Consultation
C22 First Nations Consultation


TERMS
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Assimilative
Capacity
Study
(ACS)
Mathematical modelling to determine the ability of a receiving waterbody

to accept the treated effluent without harmful effects or damage to
aquatic life.
Aeration Tank
Following primary treatment, contaminants dissolved in sewage are

consumed by microorganisms in large tanks that are supplied with the
oxygen (air) necessary for the survival of the microorganisms.
Aerobic
In the presence of oxygen.
Anaerobic
In the absence of oxygen.
Activated
Sludge
Process
(ASP)
A secondary sewage treatment process in which air is bubbled through

sewage and microorganisms in aeration tanks. The microorganisms feed
on organic matter. This allows the formation of biologically activated
sludge which is subsequently separated from the treated wastewater by
sedimentation and returned to the aeration tank. See also CAS.
Biological Aerated Filter (BAF)
A wastewater treatment process in which a filter is submerged in the

wastewater and gravity allows the wastewater to drain through. Biomass
grows on the filter, and air is fed into the system to encourage biological
growth. The biomass oxidizes organic material that passes through it.
The filter is periodically backwashed with air in order to release solids
trapped in the voids of the filter.
Biological
Nutrient Removal
A wastewater treatment process that use biological mechanisms for the
(BNR)
removal of phosphorus and nitrogen.
Biosolids
A nutrient-rich organic material resulting from the treatment of sewage.

Unprocessed sewage treatment sludge must at least be digested before
being referred to as biosolids.
Biosolids contain nitrogen and
phosphorus along with other supplementary nutrients in smaller doses,

such as potassium, sulphur, magnesium, calcium, copper and zinc.
BOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CAC
Citizen Advisory Committee
CAS
Conventional Activated Sludge. A biological process in which sewage is

initially settled in primary clarifiers to remove sludge for digestion
treatment, with the clarified sewage then combined with microorganisms
(activated sludge) in an aeration tank for further treatment and
subsequent separation of treated effluent in final clarifiers. Sludge from
final clarifiers is returned to the aeration basins and excess waste
activated sludge is generally combined with primary sludge for digestion
1 of 6


treatment. See also Activated Sludge Process.

CBOD
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemically Enhanced Primary
A wastewater treatment process in which chemicals, generally metal salts
Treatment (CEPT)
and/or polymers are added to wastewater during primary sedimentation.

The chemicals cause particles suspended in the wastewater to clump
together and sink, so that these suspended solids can be removed.
Clarifier
A tank or basin in which sewage is held for a period of time, during

which the heavier solids (referred to as sludge) settle to the bottom and
any lighter materials present (referred to as scum) float to the water
surface. Used in both primary and secondary treatment.
Dewatered Cake
Biosolids or sludge that has been concentrated to greater than 20

percent dry solids to produce a material of soil-like consistency.
Dewatering
A process used to remove water from biosolids or sludge producing

dewatered cake that contains greater than 20 percent dry solids.
Digester
A tank in which solid material removed from sewage (including raw

and/or waste activated sludge) is placed to allow for decomposition by
microorganisms over a treatment period of at least 15 days. When
anaerobic conditions are maintained, the major products of digestion are
biosolids, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane. Methane gas may be
recovered as a fuel source. Significant reduction in levels of pathogens is
achieved.
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
E.coli
Escherichia coli, a bacteria found in wastewater that can cause illness in

humans.
Effluent
The treated, cleaned discharge from sewage treatment plants.
Effluent Polishing
See Tertiary Treatment.
Effluent Sewer
Sewer pipe that conveys sewage effluent to an outfall.
Equalization
Wastewater is kept in suspension in a flow attenuation basin in order to

overcome operational problems associated with changes in flow rate.
Environmental
Assessment
A comprehensive and systematic process designed to identify, analyze
(EA)
and evaluate the environmental effects of proposed projects.
ESR
Environmental Study Report
Ferric Chloride
A chemical compound of iron and chlorine used to cause phosphorus

particles in the sewage to settle to the bottom of treatment units and
then be removed with the sludge produced in the treatment process. In
2 of 6


sewage treatment, this means that both iron and phosphorus are carried
into raw sludge and waste activated sludge (WAS).
Grit Removal
An element of preliminary treatment used to remove heavy materials,

such as sand and gravel, from the sewage arriving at the treatment plant.
The settled material is removed and sent to landfill.
High Rate Clarification
A wastewater treatment process that uses chemical and physical

treatment and settling plates or settling tubes to increase the rate at
which solids can settle and be removed from wastewater.
Integrated
FixedFixed-Film
Activated Sludge (IFAS)
A wastewater treatment process that uses synthetic material to provide

increased surface area for bacteria to grow on and thereby increase the
population of bacteria available in aeration tanks for sewage treatment.
Master Plan
A comprehensive plan to guide long-term development in a particular

area that is broad in scope. It focuses on the analysis of a system for the
purpose of outlining a framework for use in future individual projects. A
Wastewater and Water Servicing Master Plan developed by Halton Region
identified the need for expanding the Mid-Halton Wastewater (Sewage)
Treatment Plant.
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
A wastewater treatment process using an activated sludge process, but

using semi-permeable membranes for separation of suspended growth
from the effluent instead of settling tanks.
MCL
Ministry of Culture
MLD
Million litres per day
MOE
Ministry of Environment
MNR
Ministry of Natural Resources
Nitrogen
NIA
Natural Inventory Assessment
Outfall
The discharge pipe that carries sewage treatment plant effluent to a

receiving body of water. The effluent leaves the pipe through a series of
diffuser ports, not unlike giant shower heads, that ensure the effluent is
rapidly and effectively diffused into the lake environment to minimize
environmental impacts.
Pathogens
Disease-causing organisms, including bacteria, viruses and parasites

(protozoa and helminthic worms). Their numbers and types in sewage,
raw sludge, waste activated sludge (WAS) and biosolids depend on: the
season of the year; sanitary habits, population density and rates of
disease in the servicing area; and, the type and performance of sewage
3 of 6


and sludge treatment processes.

Plume
The path taken by effluent once it is discharged from an outfall into a

receiving body of water, prior to its complete mixing with the receiving
water.
Preliminary Treatment
Initial part of the sewage treatment process that removes large objects
such rocks, rags, sand, tree branches and similar materials that may
hinder the operation of a treatment plant. Preliminary treatment is
accomplished by using equipment such as racks, bar screens and grit
removal systems.
Primary
Primary Treatment
The physical removal of and readily settling solids, and fats and oils from
sewage by clarifiers and/or skimming devices. Initial part of the sewage
treatment process that removes large objects such rocks, rags, sand, tree
branches and similar materials that may hinder the operation of a
treatment plant. Preliminary treatment is accomplished by using
equipment such as racks, bar screens and grit removal systems.
PWQO
Provincial Water Quality Objectives
Raw Sludge
The solid materials collected from primary treatment (i.e., sludge and
scum from primary clarifiers).
Rotating Biological Contactors
A wastewater treatment process in which sewage comes in contact with a
(RBC)
biological medium that is typically growing on discs that are rotating at a

right angle to the flow of the wastewater. The rotation allows the sewage
and biomass to be aerated, and promotes biological growth on the disc,
facilitating the removal of contaminants.
Regulated Mixing Zone
A zone with water quality regulations for the protection of recreation,

drinking water, habitat etc., where effluent discharged from the WWTP
mixes with a stream, lake or larger water body.
Return Activated Sludge (RAS)
The portion of the solid materials collected from secondary treatment

(i.e., secondary clarifiers) returned to the aeration tanks to sustain
biological activity there.
Sanitary Sewer
Sewer pipe that conveys sewage to a sewage treatment plant. Part of the
sewage collection system.
Sequencing
(SBR)
SBR)
Batch
Reactor
A wastewater treatment process in which dual purpose tankage is used

for both aeration and settling operations thereby eliminating the need for
separate final clarifiers. Air is diffused through the sewage in batches in
order to reduce biochemical oxygen demand, Bacteria consume organic
matter, resulting in the formation of sludge which can then be removed
during the subsequent settling/decanting operation.
4 of 6


SEIA
Social economic Impact Assessment
Secchi Disc
A circular disc used to measure the cloudiness or turbidity in surface

water.
Secondary Treatment
Biological sewage treatment process that occurs in two steps. First,

microorganisms are used to break down contaminants dissolved in
sewage that are organic in origin. This occurs in a series of aerated
tanks. Second, microorganisms and other solid materials are then settled
out of the sewage in secondary clarifiers.
Sewage
The liquid waste products of domestic, industrial, agricultural and

manufacturing activities directed to the sanitary sewer system.
Sewage Treatment Plant

Plant (or
A plant that treats urban sewage and discharges the treated effluent to a
Wastewater Treatment Plant)
receiving body of water.
Screening
An element of preliminary treatment. See Preliminary Treatment.
SS
Suspended Solids
Tertiary Treatment
Final treatment stage after secondary treatment to further improve the

quality of effluent before it is discharged into the environment. Also
known as Effluent Polishing.
Thickening
A process used to increase the solids content of waste activated sludge

by removing a portion of the water.
Trickling Filter/Solids Contact
A biological wastewater treatment process in which wastewater passes
(TF/SC)
through a filter of rocks, gravel, plastic, etc. A biomass film grows over
the filter media and degrades organic material in the wastewater.
Underflow from the filter is mixed with sludge from the clarifier and the
mixture is aerated prior to sedimentation.
TKN
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total P or TP
Total Phosphorus
TS
Total Solids
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
TSSA
Technical Standards and Safety Authority: a safety services organization

responsible for the administration of Ontario's Technical Standards &
Safety Act
UV Disinfection
Ultra violet irradiation disinfection process that uses a light of a specific

wavelength to penetrate the cells of microorganisms present in water to
prevent them from replicating or to cause direct cell death.
Wastewater
Sewage
5 of 6

Wastewater Treatment Plant

See Sewage Treatment Plant.
(WWTP)
Waste Activated Sludge (WAS)
The portion of the solid materials collected from secondary treatment

(i.e., secondary clarifiers) not returned to the aeration tanks and destined
for digestion.
6 of 6
Executive Summary
1 Introduction and Background

The Mid-Halton WWTP, which was originally commissioned in 1991, is located in the Town of Oakville,
north of the North Service Road between Third Line and Bronte Road. This treatment plant services portions
of the Town of Oakville, Town of Milton, Halton Hills and City of Burlington. This plant is nearing the end
of its Phase III expansion phase which is expected to be commissioned in Spring 2010. The planned Phase IV
and V expansion covered in this Environmental Study Report is expected to add 50 ML/d to increase the plant
rated capacity from 75 MLD to 125 MLD.
As a result of the Master Planning Update of 2008, the need for the Phase IV and V expansions of the MidHalton Wastewater Treatment Plant on the existing site was identified as the preferred solution for future
wastewater servicing. The Master Planning Update completed Phases 1 and 2 of the MEA Class EA
requirements and this ESR addresses Phases 3 and 4 of the Class EA requirements documenting the
evaluation of alternative design concepts for the preferred solution including their associated environmental
impacts and proposed mitigation measures.
2 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

There are 5 Phases in a Schedule C Class EA process including Phase 1 Identify the Problem or
Opportunity; Phase 2 Identity Alternative Solutions to Address the Problem or Opportunity; Phase 3
Examine Alternative Methods of Implementing the Preferred Solution; and Phase 4 Documentation of the
Process in an Environmental Study Report (ESR). Phase 5 of the Class EA process, which covers Project
Implementation, is outside the scope of this current project.
The Master Planning Update of 2008 satisfied the first two Phases of the Class EA requirements and this ESR
documents the planning activities undertaken in Phases 3 and 4 of the Schedule C Class EA process.
Figure 2.1 provides a display of the overall Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process.
Executive Summary - 1
Executive Summary
Figure 2.1 Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process
Executive Summary
3 Study Area
The study area for this project, as advertised prior to the two Public Information Centres (PICs), is shown in
Figure 3.1. There were two components of the study area, the first consisting of land including and
surrounding the existing Mid-Halton WWTP site, north of North Service Road between Third Line and
Bronte Road and the second component of the study area south of North Service Road between Fourteen Mile
Creek and Bronte Road, extending to Lake Ontario. These two components of the study area were required
for the plant expansion and effluent sewer routing alternatives, respectively.
Figure 3.1 Plan of Study Area
Executive Summary
4 Existing Treatment Facilities
The plant is currently in the completion stage of construction for the Phase III expansion. The following
Figure 4.1 is an aerial photograph taken during October 2009 showing the Phase III site and identifying the
treatment facilities. This construction phase is expected to be commissioned during Spring 2010. The Phase
III expansion will bring the capacity of the Mid-Halton WWTP to 75 ML/d average day capacity. The
proposed expansion for Phases IV and V will bring the plant capacity to 125 ML/d.
Figure 4.1 Aerial Photo of the Phase III Expansion in October 2009
5 Receiving Water
Water Assessment
As part of the Class EA process, it was necessary to undertake an Assimilation Capacity Study (ACS) to
assess the impact of an increase in effluent discharge from the Mid-Halton WWTP on the receiving water
quality in Lake Ontario. Treated effluent from the expanded WWTP must meet Ontarios regulatory water
quality requirements as outlined in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE)'s
publications. Various discharge alternatives, including combined Mid-Halton and Oakville Southwest
WWTP effluent sewer and separated effluent sewers for the two WWTPs were modelled. Alternative
discharge distances offshore were also modelled.
The objectives of the ACS were as follows:
To determine impacts of the proposed effluent discharge from the WWTP expansion on the receiving
water in both the near-field mixing zone, and the far-field mixing zone;
To demonstrate that the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs) can be met;
To determine design requirements of the new outfall/diffuser, as required; and
To prepare an ACS report for submission to MOE for approval.
Executive Summary
Through a detailed evaluation as part of the EA process, it was determined that a new, separate, outfall for the
expanded Mid-Halton WWTP would be the preferred alternative. A series of model runs were completed to
determine how far the new outfall would need to be located offshore in order to meet the PWQOs. It was
recognized that the Oakville Southwest plant would continue to discharge effluent from the existing outfall,
such that the impacts of the overlapping plumes from the Oakville Southwest and Mid-Halton plants were
also considered in the dilution model.
Based on the modelling completed for the ACS, it was recommended that a new outfall sewer should be
constructed to 1800 m offshore, with an additional 300 m long diffuser section to 2,100 m overall distance
offshore. With this outfall and diffuser length, predicted dilutions showed that the PWQOs could be met for
all seasons for un-ionized ammonia and total phosphorus. Far-field modelling also predicted that both the
PWQOs and limits set by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) could be met at the Oakville
and Burloak Water Supply Plant intakes. PWQOs could also be met at the shoreline.
6 Development, Screening and Evaluation

Evaluation of Alternative Design
Concepts for Phase IV and V WWTP Expansion
A long list of design alternatives was developed for subsequent screening and evaluation for the Phase IV and
V WWTP expansion. These design alternatives covered both effluent sewer and plant expansion/upgrading
requirements.
6.1 Effluent Outfall

The screening criteria that were applied to the list of effluent outfall alternatives were as follows:
1. Must be compatible with existing plants;
2. Must meet the performance and capacity objectives, in this case, Provincial Water Quality Objectives
(PWQO) for assimilation of the effluent by Lake Ontario and hydraulic capacity of the outfall;
3. Must be proven technology;
4. Must be expandable to meet forecast demands;
5. Implementation schedule must match the required in-service date for the plant expansion 2013 for 100
MLD and 2017 for 125 MLD, average daily flows.
Table 6.1 presents the results of the effluent outfall sewer screening.
Executive Summary
Table 6.1 Screening of Outfall Alternatives

Outfall
Alternative
Concepts
Compatibility
with the
existing plant
Performance
and Capacity
Objectives
Proven
Technology
Expandability
Implementation
Schedule
A:
Existing
Combined
MEETS
CRITERIA
DOESNT MEET
CRITERIA WITH
THE CURRENT
LEVEL OF
TREATMENT AND
HYDRAULIC
CAPACITY
MEETS
CRITERIA
DOESNT
MEET
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
B:
New
Combined
DOESNT MEETS
CRITERIA SINCE
OSW PLANT
NEEDS NEW
PUMPING
MEETS
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
UNCERTAIN
IF CRITERIA
CAN BE MET
MEETS
CRITERIA
C:
New
Separated
MEETS
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
Meets screening criterion
Fails to meet screening criterion
Preferred Alternative
During the Class EA investigations, the possibility of providing a raw sewage flow attenuation facility and
continuing to use the existing combined Mid-Halton and Oakville SW WWTP effluent sewer was studied.
The study determined that such an approach would not be practical or economical and that even with such a
flow attenuation facility the existing combined effluent sewer would not have sufficient hydraulic capacity,
nor could its capacity be upgraded by twinning to provide enough capacity for future wastewater flows from
the Mid-Halton plant.
Other effluent sewer design alternatives that were considered included the possibility of a new combined
effluent sewer to serve both the Oakville SW WWTP and the Mid-Halton WWTP, as well as a separate
effluent sewer alternative, whereby Oakville SW WWTP would continue to utilize its existing effluent sewer,
with a new effluent sewer provided for the Mid-Halton WWTP. For the Oakville SW WWTP to utilize the
same new effluent sewer as the Mid-Halton WWTP, would require that the Oakville SW WWTP effluent
flows be pumped into the new effluent sewer. Due to site constraints on the Oakville SW WWTP site, this
alternative was considered to be impractical and was eliminated from further consideration.
The preferred effluent sewer design alternative was found to be a new separate effluent sewer for the MidHalton WWTP and continuing to utilize the existing effluent sewer for the Oakville SW WWTP.
6.2 Effluent Sewer

The screening criteria that were applied to the long list of effluent sewer design alternatives were the same as
for the effluent outfall alternatives.
Because all of the effluent sewer route alternatives under consideration would pass through highly urbanized
areas of Oakville, open cut construction would result in significant socio-economic impacts. As a result of
this, a tunnelling construction approach was recommended for all effluent sewer route alternatives.
Figure 6.1 schematically depicts the long list of effluent sewer design alternatives.
Executive Summary
Figure 6.1 Schematic of Long List of Effluent Sewer Design Alternatives
The screening criteria that were applied to the long list of effluent sewer routing alternatives and the results of
the screening are shown in Table 6.2. Alternative A, B and C routes were short-listed for further detailed
evaluation of the alternative tunnel shaft sites that would be needed for tunnel construction along these routes.
Executive Summary
Table 6.2 Screening of Effluent Sewer Routes
The detailed evaluation criteria that were used to assess the shaft sites of the short-listed effluent sewer
routing alternatives and the results of the evaluation are shown in Table 6.3.
Executive Summary
Table 6.3 Summary of Shaft Site Evaluation
Table Legend:
Minor impact
Moderate impact
Major impact
Executive Summary
Based on the evaluation of tunnel routes and shaft sites, a preferred effluent sewer alignment and preferred
shaft site locations were identified. The preferred alignment and shaft sites alternatives are depicted in Figure
6.2. The currently preferred alignment is from the Mid-Halton WWTP shaft site south through the GO station
site to a shaft side in the proposed future GO parking lot north of Speers Road, or alternatively to a shaft side
at Speers Road and Third Line, then south on Third Line to Lakeshore Road. The preferred tunnel route from
Lakeshore Road and Third Line is east on Lakeshore Road and then through the east area of Coronation Park
into Lake Ontario. A third shaft site would be required in Coronation Park.
Following a constructability review of the effluent sewer with an experienced tunnelling contractor, an
additional sub-alternative was identified. That constructability review resulted in the alternative for effluent
sewer routing between the Mid-Halton WWTP shaft site and the Speers Road and Third Line intersection.
This alternative would route the effluent sewer tunnel from the Mid-Halton WWTP shaft site eastward to
Third Line and then south on Third Line to Speers Road. Although this tunnel route alternative would go
under a portion of the Fourteen Mile Creek valley it is well below the creek in the shale bedrock and potential
impacts on the creek are expected to be avoided. This alternative is also shown in Figure 6.2 as a subalternative that is recommended to be carried forward for further investigations during the future Class EA
Phase 5 design and tendering phase. This alternative would require further geotechnical investigations to
confirm its viability.
Figure 6.2 Preferred Effluent Sewer Alignment and Shaft Sites
The effluent sewer would be constructed utilizing one or more tunnel boring machines (TBMs) to construct a
tunnel with an inside diameter of approximately 3.2 m. This tunnel would then be lined to an inside diameter
of 2.6 m to form the required effluent sewer.
The effluent sewer diffuser section in Lake Ontario is proposed to be located between 1.8 km and 2.1 km
offshore. The diffuser section is proposed to consist of 27 riser shafts, each equipped with 2 staged diffuser
ports. After examining a number of alternatives for construction of the effluent sewer diffuser, it is envisaged
that a construction technique consisting of drilling the effluent diffuser risers into the alignment of the
proposed effluent tunnel, then to tunnel the effluent sewer through the diffuser riser shafts to form the
necessary diffuser sections, would be the preferred approach. The diffuser shafts and diffuser ports would
then be grouted into the bored shafts and pressure tested prior to advancing the tunnel through the vertical
shaft alignments. This diffuser construction technique was discussed with experienced tunnelling and marine
contractors. This technique was recently successfully utilized for the Region of Peel effluent sewer tunnel
construction for the Clarkson Sewage Treatment Plant.
Executive Summary
6.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant
For each of the plant components, including the North Pumping Station, preliminary treatment, grit removal,
primary treatment, secondary treatment, biosolids handling/treatment and disinfection, a number of alternative
design concepts were identified for review, screening and evaluation to select the preferred design approach.
The design alternatives for the expansion of the plant components were first of all screened using a system of
comparing advantages and disadvantages of the alternative design concepts. A detailed evaluation approach
was then used to compare each remaining alternative design alternative using 19 evaluation criteria in a
matrix format.
The results of screening of the treatment process alternatives are shown in Table 6.4. The green shaded
alternatives were carried forward for detailed evaluation.
Table 6.4 Results of Screening of the Treatment Process Alternatives
Primary/WWF
Alternatives
Proven
Technology
Performance/
Capacity
Retrofit
to Expandability
existing plant
Implementation
Schedule
Equalization
Passes
Fails
Passes
Fails
Passes
Conventional Primary Passes
Passes
Passes
Passes
Passes
Chemically Enhanced Passes

Primary
Treatment
(CEPT)
Passes
Passes
Passes
Passes
High rate Clarification Passes
Fail
Passes
Passes
Passes
Secondary Treatment Proven

Alternative
Technology
Performance/
Capacity
Retrofit
to Expandability
existing plant
Implementation
Schedule
ASP
Passes
Passes
Passes
Passes
Passes
MBR
Passes
Passes
Passes
Passes
Passes
IFAS
Passes
Passes
Passes
Passes
Passes
RBC
Passes
Passes
Supplementary Passes
Passes
TF / SC
Passes
Passes
Fails
Fails
Fails
BAF
Passes
Passes
Fails
Passes
Fails
BNR
Passes
Passes
Passes
Passes
Passes
SBR
Fails
Fails
Fails
Passes
Fails
The detailed evaluation criteria that were then utilized to determine the preferred wastewater treatment plant
design alternatives were as follows:
Impact on visual character of area
Odours
Traffic impacts
Within existing plant boundary?

Executive Summary
Impact on adjacent recreational use?
Protect archaeological findings on site
Health risks?
Risk to MOE Objectives
Impact on air quality?
Impact on terrestrial systems?
Impact on groundwater?
Compatible with existing plant?
Allows for future expansion
Operational risk
Climate change impact
Proven technology
Construction schedule
Capital cost
O&M costs
After the review of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative designs alternatives for each plant
component and next utilizing the detailed evaluation matrix, the recommended design approach for the plant
components was determined to be as follows:
North Pumping Station a physical expansion of the facility will be required including a building
extension to the west of the existing structure, expanded wet well, upgrading of existing pumps and
provision of additional pumps, odour control and new forcemains.
Preliminary treatment a screening building extension, additional screen channels and screens and
replacement of existing screens. Review capacity of existing odour control facilities and expand as
necessary.
Grit removal expand the existing facility, including two additional detritor tanks. The proposed tankage
would be structurally designed to allow for addition of tank covers in future, if deemed necessary.
Primary treatment construct 4 new primary clarifiers. The proposed tankage would be structurally
designed to allow for addition of tank covers in future, if deemed necessary.
Secondary treatment provide 4 additional aeration tanks and additional blower capacity in a new blower
building. Provide 6 new secondary clarifiers.
Biosolids handling/treatment provide a new anaerobic digester adjacent to the existing digesters and,
within the existing biosolids building, provide a new rotary drum thickener and a new centrifuge.
Disinfection provide a new building, including ultraviolet disinfection facilities.
Figure 6.3 shows a perspective of the existing plant with the proposed facilities identified.
Executive Summary
Figure 6.3 Perspective View of Plant Site Showing Existing and Proposed Facilities
7 Buffer Distance from Community

The Mid-Halton WWTP currently has the largest buffer distance between offsite sensitive land uses and plant
facilities of any of the Region of Haltons sewage treatment plants. Even following the construction of the
proposed additional facilities on this site, the buffer distance between potential odour producing facilities and
sensitive land uses offsite will be double the minimum recommended separation distances contained in the
MOE guidelines. The MOE minimum recommended separation distance is 150 m for plants of the capacity
proposed for the Mid-Halton plant expansion. The MOE guidelines also suggest that a determination of the
required distance will depend on factors such as the type of treatment process, type of noise or odour control
measures being applied, existing municipal zoning and available of land. It should be noted that additional
odour control measures are being incorporated in the proposed Phase IV and V plant expansion including
provision of odour control for the North Pumping Station, expansion of the odour control facilities at the
screening building, if found necessary, and structural design of the proposed primary clarifier and detritor
tank tankage, such that future covering of these tanks could be implemented in future, if deemed necessary.
8 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

As a result of environmental studies addressing socio-economic, natural heritage, archaeological, cultural
heritage and geotechnical conditions in the study area and as a result of meetings with public, agencies and
interest groups, potential environmental impacts were identified. Table 8.1 identifies potential impacts and
the mitigation measures proposed.
Executive Summary
Table 8.1 Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures

Potential Impacts
1. Socio-economic impacts of
open cut construction for
effluent sewer
2. Archaeological
3. Cultural Heritage
4. Noise and Vibration
5. Traffic impacts
6. Dust generation from plant

and shaft site locations
7. Plant site odour impacts
8. Receiving water quality

impacts
Proposed Mitigation Measures

Proposed to utilize tunnel instead of open-cut construction to
minimize socio-economic impacts
A Stage 2 archaeological assessment should be carried out for the
proposed shaft site in Coronation Park and for 3 undisturbed
locations in the existing plant site.
Three potential cultural heritage resources were identified that
require reviews during detailed design to identify the possible
need for mitigation measures.
Sound attenuation requirements will be included in construction
contracts to minimize noise. Construction hours will be limited in
accordance with Town of Oakville requirements. Further
geotechnical assessment will be undertaken to determine potential
for vibration impacts. Pre-construction surveys will be undertaken
of buildings in close proximity to sites generating vibration during
construction. Impacts during plant operation will be minimized by
noise attenuating building features and enclosure of potential
significant noise producing equipment, such as motors and
blowers.
Hours of trucking from plant site and shaft site locations will be
regulated to comply with Town of Oakville requirements.
Trucking during rush hours from shaft sites will be controlled by
restricting spoil trucking from shaft sites to non rush hour periods.
Typical construction site control measures will be implemented to
minimize airborne dust and transferring dust/dirt from haul routes
by trucking activities.
Additional control measures will be implemented at the treatment
plant during the Phase IV and V expansion, including odour
control for the North Pumping Station Expansion; assessment of
existing odour control capacity in the inlet works building and
expansion of odour control system, if needed; structural design of
detritor and primary clarifier tanks such that covering of these
tanks in future could be implemented for odour control, if deemed
necessary.
By constructing effluent sewer to the proposed location in Lake
Ontario, Provincial Water Quality Objectives can be satisfied both
near-field and far-field. Water infiltration into the tunnel during
construction will be collected at shaft sites and discharged to
sanitary sewer systems for further treatment to minimize impacts
on surface water quality. Further geotechnical investigation will
be undertaken to ensure that there will be no negative impacts on
14th Mile Creek as a result of the possible tunnel crossing of the
creek valley for an alternative effluent sewer alignment. The
stormwater detention pond on the plant site will continue to be
utilized to remove sediment resulting from onsite activities.
Surface water runoff quantity from the plant site will be reduced
Executive Summary
as a result of construction of additional open tankage, as part of
the plant expansion. During detailed design in Phase 5 of the
Class EA, revised drainage swales and inlets will be designed for
the plant site to meet or exceed the performance of the existing
storm drainage system on the site. Temporary fencing and erosion
control measures will be implemented as needed, such as sediment
control fencing, catchbasin sediment barriers, rock check dams
and temporary soil stabilization of bare-soil areas.
9. Potential community
Liaison will continue with residents in the study area during
impacts
construction to consider and mitigate anticipated community
effects. Aesthetically pleasing noise barriers will be provided for
shaft sites; idling equipment will be shut off; construction
equipment motors will be equipped with mufflers; erosion control
including silt fences, straw bales and other protective measures
will be installed where necessary; wheels of equipment that will be
travelling on roads will be washed; plant site and municipal roads
used for haulage will be regularly cleaned; for safety purposes,
fencing, monitoring cameras and lighting will be provided for
safety. Lighting provided on construction sites will be designed to
minimize off-site effects.
10. Construction waste impacts Site waste will be separated into recyclables in compliance with
Haltons policies on waste disposal. Waste will not be burned or
buried on site.
Construction traffic activities will be restricted to between 7:00 am
11. Potential noise impacts in
communities
and 7:00 pm during weekdays and to 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on
Saturdays. Construction activities will not take place on Sundays,
unless approved by the town of Oakville. We anticipate seeking
approval from the Town of Oakville for tunnelling activity to
proceed 24 hours per day as most of this activity is below ground.
Nighttime activity at the surface would be limited to work within
the site hoarding mainly removing and temporarily storing spoil
from the excavated tunnel.
Existing circulation patterns will be maintained to the greatest
12. Interference with potential
pedestrian and vehicle
extent possible throughout the construction and implementation
circulation patterns
phase.
Access will be maintained for Sir John Colborne Park and
13. Interference with access to
recreational areas
Coronation Park.
Existing electrical power sources will be used wherever possible,
14. Impact of portable power
generators on construction
and silencing will be employed on portable power generators to
sites
conform with Town of Oakville and Region of Halton zoning
requirements.
Signage for potential detour routes will be erected well in advance
15. Effect of detours
of detours to allow road users to make alternative arrangements.
Notices will be prepared and distributed on a regular basis to
16. General construction
impact notices
residents and businesses in the study area throughout the
construction duration, including schedules, progress reports, etc.
All signage and equipment required for construction will be
17. Impacts on site following
construction
removed from the work site immediately following completion of
construction activities. It is recommended that a tree preservation
plan be incorporated in the design/construction phase to protect
Executive Summary
18. Invasive vegetative species
19. Disruption of private lands
20. Impacts on use of

Coronation Park site during
and following construction
21. Potential fish habitat impact

in Lake Ontario
mature trees that lie outside of the main construction footprint at

any of the construction sites.
Efforts will be made to rehabilitate public and private lands
following construction to remove invasive vegetative species and
to replace them with indigenous ones.
Private lands will be restored to their pre-construction state as
soon as possible once the construction activities have ceased.
Follow-up inspections will be undertaken to ensure that
landscaping restoration efforts are successful. If necessary,
replanting will take place if trees, plants and other vegetation fail
to survive the following season.
Coronation Park parking lot and waterfront trail will be
maintained for public use during construction period.
Construction trades would not be allowed to occupy waterfront
trail or parking lots. No visible infrastructure will be left at grade
following construction. Park will be restored and possibly
enhanced as compensation for construction access (will be
investigated and discussed with Town of Oakville during detailed
design). Opportunities to improve habitat conditions for migratory
birds will also be discussed with Conservation Halton and Town
of Oakville at this time, A tree preservation plan should be
incorporated in design/construction phase to protect mature trees
that lie outside of the main construction footprint at any of the
construction sites. To avoid impacts to the shaft site as a result of
waves during storm events in Lake Ontario, the shaft site hoarding
may require protection.
It is proposed to use tunnel construction to the extreme offshore
end of the effluent sewer. Diffuser shafts are proposed to be
drilled from a barge into the tunnel to minimize impacts on the
lakebed. Negligible surface area (approximately 5.4 m2) would be
impacted by this construction technique. At the Mid-Halton Plant,
Level 1 (enhanced) stormwater treatment measures will be
provided to protect Species at Risk fish in Fourteen Mile Creek.
9 Public and Agency Consultation

The following public and agency consultation activities were undertaken:
A Notice of Commencement was issued in local newspapers during October and November 2008.
Members of the public were invited to participate in a Citizen Advisory Committee.
Direct mailings took place to stakeholders including residents, land owners, politicians, municipalities,
rate payer groups, school boards, Aboriginal/First Nations groups, provincial and federal agencies,
interests groups and utilities. Direct mailings were also made to parties who requested direct notification
of future project activities.
Following up phone calls were made to First Nations, Aboriginal and Metis communities.
A project web site was established.
Mobile road sign displays were utilized prior to the Public Information Centres.
Two Public Information Centres were convened during May and October 2009.
Executive Summary
Citizens Advisory Committee meetings were convened on 5 occasions during the course of the Class EA
project.
Information on the project was presented to the Ecological and Environment Agency Committee (EEAC)
on February 19, 2009.
An External Technical Advisory Committee (ExTAC) was established and meetings were convened on 2
occasions with this Committee.
Agency meetings were convened with Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation Halton and
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Meetings took place with the Town of Oakville.
Meetings were held with GO Transit.
10 Budget Requirements
Initial Master Plan estimates for this project identified a total cost of $149M as presented in the 2010 Budget
& Business Plan (ID# 5734, 3808, 5945). As part of this Class EA process and the investigations that have
been undertaken, the cost estimates have been refined to a total cost of $169 M including the North Pumping
Station upgrades, treatment plant expansion and new effluent sewer. This budget figure excludes GST, but
includes construction costs, engineering and contingencies.
11 Implementation Schedule
The following schedule is being provided as an indication of the expected timeframe for completion of the
subsequent project implementation phases for design and construction.
It is assumed that the ESR public review period will be completed by May 2010 and that the preliminary
design phase could get underway by June 2010. There is a requirement to relocate two existing sewage
forcemains from the Third Line Pumping Station that cross the area of the site where this proposed plant
construction will take place. In the interest of providing the plant expansion as soon as possible, it may be
advisable to design and award a site preparation contract in advance of the main plant contract to relocate
these forcemains and to do any other site preparation work that may be necessary.
The following timing requirements relate to the plant design and construction only since the effluent tunnel
design and construction schedule would be a shorter time duration than the plant.
Activity
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Tendering/Approvals
Construction
Total
Time Requirement
8 months
6 months
2 months
24 months
40 months
This schedule indicates that the plant could not be commissioned until the fourth quarter of 2013.
ESR for Mid-Halton WWTP Expansion Class EA
1 Introduction
Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) was retained by the Regional Municipality of Halton (Region of Halton) in
October 2008 to undertake a Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Phase IV & V
expansion of the Mid-Halton Water Pollution Control Plant (WWTP) (Sewage Treatment Plant).
The Mid-Halton WWTP, which was originally commissioned in 1991, is located in the Town of Oakville,
north of the North Service Road between Third Line and Bronte Road. The Mid-Halton WWTP services
portions of the Town of Oakville, Town of Milton, Halton Hills and City of Burlington. The plant has
recently undergone a Phase III Expansion which brought the plant capacity to 75 ML/d.
Due to continuing development within the service area, this Class Environmental Assessment is addressing
the Phase IV & V expansion phases that would bring the capacity to 125 ML/d.
The Environmental Study Report (ESR) has been prepared to document the Class EA process that has been
undertaken from Phase 3 to Phase 4 of the Class EA process. The ESR also reports upon earlier Class EA
Phases that were undertaken during the Master Plan Review of 2008.
Planning studies for the service area of this WWTP have identified the need to expand the plant capacity to
satisfy future growth and development in these areas and to service the expected increase in population.
The scope of this project involves the completion of Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA for the
planned Mid-Halton WWTP Expansion Phases including all investigations, studies and analyses in
accordance with the Ontario Municipal Class EA Guideline.
The CA study is classified as the Schedule C undertaking, with the key deliverable being an environmental
study report based on the completion to the end of Phase 4 as defined by the Municipal Engineer Association
Class EA document of October 2000 as amended in 2007.
The completed Phase 1 and 2 components of the Class EA were completed during the Master Planning
Update of 2008. That Master Plan identified the preferred solution to the problem/opportunity as being the
expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP on the existing site. Phase 3 of this Class EA documents the evaluation
of the alternative design concepts for the preferred solution including their associated environmental impacts
and proposed mitigation measures in selecting the preferred design concepts. This Phase 4 ESR Report has
been prepared to document all the activities undertaken to date in Phases 3 and 4.
1.1 Objectives of the ESR

The objectives of this Environmental Study Report (ESR) document are as follows:
1) Provide a general description of the selection of the preferred solution as determined during the
Master Plan Update phase completed in 2008.
2) Provide background information relating to the need for the Mid-Halton WPCP Expansion.
3) Present the alternative designs of the preferred solution.
4) Present the rationale employed in selecting the preferred design concepts.
5) Provide a description of the environmental considerations and impacts.
6) Proposed the mitigating measures which will be undertaken to minimize environmental effects.
7) Document the consultation process with an explanation of how concerns raised by the public and
review agencies have been addressed in developing this project.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 1
1.2 Ontario Environmental

Environmental Assessment Act
Major capital works for municipal sewage systems, such as expansions of waste water treatment plants, are
subject to the requirements of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act). The EA Act identifies
two types of environmental assessment planning and approval processes including Individual Environmental
Assessments (Part 2 of the EA Act) and Class EA (Part 2.1 of the EA Act). This project is being undertaken
as a Class EA. The requirements of a Class EA are discussed in the following sub section.
1.2.1 Class Environmental Assessment Process

This project is being undertaken as a Class EA in compliance with the Municipal Engineers Association Class
Environmental Assessment for municipal projects, October 2000, as amended in 2007. Generally, the Class
EA process is applicable to sewage projects where either a new water pollution control facility is to be
established or where an existing facility requires modification beyond what would be considered to be
maintenance or operational improvements. Under the Class EA, projects are subject to varying levels of
environmental review depending on the extent of their potential impact.
Projects fall into four schedules of undertakings including Schedule A projects which are essentially preapproved and exempt from the Class EA procedures. Schedule A+ projects are also considered to be preapproved; however, they require that the public be advised prior to their project implementation. Schedule B
projects are those considered to potentially have some adverse environmental effects. In the case of Schedule
B projects, proponents are required to undertake a screening process, involving mandatory contact with
directly affected public or relevant review agencies, to ensure that they are aware of the project and that their
concerns are addressed. If there are no outstanding concerns, then the proponent may proceed to
implementation. Schedule B projects generally include improvements such as minor expansions or upgrades
to existing facilities. Schedule C projects are those that have the potential for significant environmental
effects and must proceed through the full planning and documentation procedures specified in the Municipal
Class EA document. Schedule C projects require that an ESR be prepared and filed for review by the public
and review agencies. Schedule C projects generally include the construction of new facilities and major
expansions to existing facilities. Provided that the approved Class EA planning process is followed, a
proponent has complied with Section 13 (3)(a) of the EA Act.
There are five phases of the Schedule C Class EA process as follows: Phase 1 identify the problem
(deficiency) or opportunity. Phase 2 identify alternative solutions to address the problem or opportunity by
taking into consideration the existing environment, and establish the preferred solution taking into account
public and review agency input. Phase 3 examine alternative methods of implementing the preferred
solution, based on the existing environment, public and review agency input, anticipated environmental
effects and methods of minimizing negative effects and maximizing positive effects. Phase 4 document, in
an ESR a summary of the rationale, and the planning, design and consultation process of the project as
established through the above phases, and make such a document available for scrutiny for at least 30
calendar days by review agencies and the public. At the time of filing the ESR, the public and review
agencies must be notified. During the minimum 30-day review period, no work shall be undertaken that will
adversely affect the matter under review. Provided no significant impacts are identified during this review
period and no Part II Order requests are received from the public and review agencies, the Schedule C EA
process is completed and the proponent is free to proceed with implementation and construction. See
Appendix C2 for changing the Project Status-Appeal Process. Phase 5 complete contract drawings and
documents, and proceed to construction and operation; monitor construction for adherence to environmental
provisions and commitments. Where special conditions dictate, also monitor the operation of the completed
facilities. This assignment will not include Phase 5 of the Class EA activities, since that is expected to be
undertaken as a future engineering assignment.
Page 2
Report Ref# 250101
The Class EA flow chart is included as Figure 1.1 following page 3. A full description of the Class EA
procedure is contained in the document entitled Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Municipal
Engineers Association, October 2000, as amended in 2007.
.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 3
Figure 1.1 Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process
Page 4
Report Ref# 250101
1.3 Planning Policies, Acts and Regulations

During the undertaking of a Municipal Class EA, there are always other planning policies, acts and
regulations that have to be taken into consideration. In the case of this project, these could include the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), Provincial Greenbelt Plan (2005), Environmental Policies
and Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs), Source Water Protection Zones, Oakridges Marine Act, etc.
The possible applicability of these planning policies, acts and regulations to this project are discussed in the
following sub sections.
1.3.1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and Possible CEAA Triggers
Municipal projects may be subject to the requirements of the CEAA.
municipal project of this type could include the following:
Potential CEAA triggers for a
1) The project is being funded with federal money.

2) The project is being undertaken on federal land.
3) The project could affect facilities for the transmission of oil or gas.
4) The project is likely to affect the operation of a railway company or property.
5) The project could involve temporary storage of explosives on site.
6) A project which proposes to use or occupy federal real property.
7) The project is likely to affect fish or fish habitat.
8) The project is likely to affect the navigability of a water body.
9) The project is likely to affect a historic canal.
10) The project is likely to affect Indian reserve lands.
The potential CEAA triggers that could exist for this Mid-Halton project include items 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. All of
these potential CEAA triggers will be considered and addressed later in this ESR.
1.3.2 Environmental Policies and Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs)

The environmental policies that are significant in this undertaking and have been considered in the decisionmaking process include:
Conservation Authorities Act and Regulations
Federal Fisheries Act
Provincial Planning Act policies
Halton Region and Town of Oakville Environmental and Natural Heritage Policies
Provincial Endangered Species Act and federal Species At Risk Act
Ontario Water Resources Act
The site is located west and south of the 14 Mile Creek valley, which is designated by the Region of Halton
Official Plan as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). Redside Dace, a federally and provincially
designated endangered species, has been recorded from the 14 Mile Creek Valley ESA in 2004 and the ESA
provides suitable habitat (cool water flowing over gravel or stony substrates in a poolriffle sequence) for this
species (Dwyer 2006). The valley supports a range of habitats for wildlife species and represents a wintering
Report Ref# 250101
Page 5
and staging area for saw-whet and long-eared owls. Portions of the community located directly adjacent to the
ESA may buffer the ESA from adjacent land uses, while those portions of the cultural meadow community
that extend to the proposed shaft site likely serve as habitat for a range of common, urban/semi-urban adapted
species such as Eastern Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and Raccoon (Procyon lotor).
1.3.3 Intake Protection Zones

Under a separate Ontario Ministry of the Environment project, protection zones have been defined for all
drinking water purification plant intakes. Two classes of protection zone: IPZ1 and IPZ2 have been defined,
representing the boundaries of a zone in which contaminants would take 1 or 2 hours to enter the intake,
respectively. The zones cover lake, creek and land areas. IPZ boundaries were provided by Halton Region
Conservation Authority and used to guide the location of the proposed outfall diffuser array relative to the
IPZ2 zones for the Burloak and Oakville WPPs. The proposed location relative to the IPZ2 zones is shown in
Figure 1.2 below.
Figure 1.2 Outfall Diffuser Location Relative to IPZ2 Zones
An Assimilative Capacity Study was further used to provide a detailed understanding of any potential effect
of the effluent discharge on the WPP intakes. Details of the ACS work can be found in Section 3.2.
Page 6
Report Ref# 250101
1.4 EA Project Team Members

Table 1.1 below details the main EA Project Team personnel, including representatives from Halton Region,
the principal consultant and the sub-consultants:
Table 1.1 EA Project Team Members
ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTATIVE(S)
ROLES
Halton Region
Mickey Liu
Hatch Mott MacDonald
Don Cane and Peter Smith
Hardy Stevenson &

Associates
Dave Hardy
Hydromantis
Jeff Mullin
Odor and Corrosion

Technology Consultants
Jim Joyce
Sub-consultant for odour mitigation assessment
W.F. Baird & Associates
Fiona Duckett
Sub-consultant for assimilative capacity

assessment and phosphorus loading study
iTrans Consulting Inc.
Ray Bacquie and Drew

Stirling
Transportation Issues Sub-consultant
Aquafor Beech Limited
Brian Hindley
Sub-consultant for natural environment impact

assessment
Thurber Engineering Ltd.

Archaeological Services
Inc.
Paulo Branco and Murray

Anderson
Robert Pihl, Caitlin Lacy
and Rebecca Sciarra
Project Manager for Mid-Halton WWTP EA

Project Manager and EA Assistant for Principal
Consultant
Sub-consultant for facilitation and socioeconomic impact assessment
Sub-consultant for sewage treatment process
assessment
Sub-consultant for geotechnical investigation

Sub-consultant for archaeological/built
heritage/cultural landscape assessment
2 Study Approach
This ESR for the expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP fulfills the requirements of Phases 3 and 4 of the
Municipal Class EA process. Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process were previously completed
through the South Halton Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update (June 2008).
2.1 Class EA Phases 1 and 2 Master Plan Review

The following section summarizes the South Halton Water and Wastewater Plan Update and provides
background and context on Phases 1 and 2 of the environmental assessment. The steps taken to complete
Phases 3 and 4 are outlined in Section 2.2.
2.1.1 Phase 1 Problem Statement

Phase 1 of an environmental assessment is the process of identifying the problem or opportunity. This
determined the scope of the project, as well as the objective. The objective of the South Halton Water and
Wastewater Plan Update was to evaluate existing water and wastewater servicing infrastructure to ensure that
it would have adequate capacity to meet the requirements associated with anticipated population growth.
Halton Region is one of the fastest growing areas of Ontario, with a population that is projected to grow to
approximately 780,000 people by 2031.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 7
The South Halton Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update (June 2008) is a technical review of the 2002
Master Plan Water and Wastewater Strategies based on revised population and employment estimates. The
purpose of the update was to evaluate the status of existing water and wastewater servicing systems, and to
recommend projects required to address existing servicing limitations and service future growth in Halton
Region. The Master Plan Update is meant to provide the framework for the water and wastewater servicing
needs for South Halton and the Sustainable Halton Plan with a planning horizon to 2031.
For the Mid-Halton plant specifically, the South Halton Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update (June
2008) outlined the existing capacity and treatment technologies that are in place, as well as treatment
performance. The potential for expansion of the plant on the existing site and the capacity of the existing
outfall with respect to the projected future flows were evaluated. The existing outfall capacity was found to be
a constraint. It was recommended that the outfall capacity and existing receiving water capacity must consider
recent trends and regulations regarding effluent discharge objectives, including phosphorus loadings.
2.1.2 Phase 2 Preferred Solution to Expand MidMid-Halton WWTP (Sewage

Treatment Plant)
As part of Phase 2 of the Class EA process, in the South Halton Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan
Update, Halton Region identified alternative solutions for meeting future wastewater servicing needs.
The Master Plan Update integrated the strategies of various plan updates, fiscal plans and bylaws, in order to
develop a cohesive plan for future infrastructure growth. It was recommended in that report that flows from
the Halton Hills corridor, growth areas in Milton, and North Oakville would continue to be conveyed to the
Mid-Halton WWTP. Additional wastewater treatment capacity would be focused at the Mid-Halton and
Skyway WWTPs. It was also recommended that the capital program for the Skyway WWTP would need to be
revised to reflect predicted capacity and treatment requirements and that additional pumping stations be
constructed along the Halton Hills 401 Corridor and in Milton East to reduce sewer depth and support staged
implementation.
Specific to the Mid-Halton WWTP, it was indicated that the servicing alternatives included a new outfall from
the plant, twinning of the existing outfall and expanding the diffuser capacity, or reducing peak flows using
storage upstream of the plant.
The Master Plan Update identified that expansion on the existing Mid-Halton WWTP site would be possible.
It was recommended that for expansion beyond 65 MLD, the capacity for biosolids treatment would have to
be increased. For expansion beyond 75 MLD, a new outfall would also be required. Based on a financial
affordability analysis, it was recommended that a two-phased expansion approach be used rather that a onephase larger expansion. This is because a one-phase expansion would require significant capital funding,
which may be difficult to procure.
2.1.3 Public Consultation during the Master Plan Review

A Master Plan must fulfill the requirements of Phase 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process. A significant
component of this process is mandatory consultation with the public. All consultation with public and
agencies must be documented at each phase of the project.
At the initiation of the South Halton Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Update project, a Public
Consultation Plan was developed to outline a strategy for informing the general public about the project and
soliciting input during the planning process.
The main components of the consultation program were as follows:
Page 8
Report Ref# 250101
A Project Website was developed by the Region for communication of project information to the public.
All public notices, publication and presentations were posted on this website as the project progressed.
A Contact List was generated and updated throughout the project. This list was used to notify parties that
had expressed interest in the project of any project developments, and to provide them with relevant
project material.
A joint Notice of Commencement and Notice of Public Information Centre were issued to notify public of
their opportunity to provide input.
A Public Information Centre (PIC) was held at the Halton Regional Headquarters on September 19, 2007.
This was used to gain public feedback on the project.
Meetings were held with stakeholders and relevant agencies in order to obtain input on the process of
determining and evaluating servicing alternatives. Stakeholder meetings included:

Conservation Authority Meetings

Niagara Escarpment Commission
Aboriginal Community Consultation
Internal & External Technical Advisor Committee Workshops
Development Community Workshop
Costing Peer Review Workshop
Development Charges Advisory Committee Meetings
A Notice of Completion of the Master Plan Update was advertised on two dates, June 13 and 20, 2008.
2.2 Class EA Phases 3 and 4

This current Class EA Project has addressed Phases 3 and 4 of the Class EA process. Phase 3 included
evaluation of alternative design concepts for implementation of the preferred solution to expand the MidHalton WWTP on the existing plant site and to alleviate the effluent sewer capacity constraints. Phase 4
included documentation of the planning, design, and consultation processes in an Environmental Study
Report.
2.2.1 Study Area

The Study Area for this project is shown in the following Figure 2.1. This Study Area was advertised in the
Notices for Public Information Centres # 1 and # 2 that were scheduled to take place on May 14, 2009 and
October 1, 2009. Copies of the ads that were placed in North Halton Compass, Oakville Today, Burlington
Post, Milton Canadian Champion and Oakville Beaver prior to the PICs are included in Appendices C6 and
C7.
The study area for this project incorporated two component areas - the first consisting of land including and
surrounding the existing Mid-Halton WWTP site, north of North Service Road between Third Line and
Bronte Road, and the second component of the study area south of North Service Road between Fourteen
Mile Creek and Bronte Road extending to Lake Ontario. The first component of the study area was required
for assessment of the North Pumping Station and WWTP expansions and the second component of the study
area was required for the assessment of alternatives for effluent sewer capacity increase.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 9
Figure 2.1 Plan of Study Area
2.2.2 Phase 3 Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution

During Phase 3 of the Class EA process, a long list of alternative design concepts to achieve the necessary
WWTP expansion was developed. Screening criteria were developed for assessing the long list of
alternatives to determine which alternatives were suitable for carrying forward into the more detailed
evaluation phase. The alternatives that were carried forward into the short list of alternatives were then
evaluated using detailed evaluation criteria. The decision making model, including proposed screening and
evaluation criteria were presented at PIC #1 for public review and comment. The screening and evaluation
Page 10
Report Ref# 250101
processes were then applied to the long and short lists of alternatives to determine a recommended design
approach for the expansion of the plant and for expansion of the effluent sewer capacity.
The alternative design concepts that required review included concepts for the North Pumping Station
capacity upgrades, sewage treatment process capacity upgrades and effluent sewer capacity increase. These
recommended design approaches were then presented at PIC #2 for further public input into the decision
making process.
Throughout Phase 3 and 4 of the project, input was also sought from relevant agencies by direct
correspondence and via invitation to participate in External Technical Advisory Committee Meetings. Project
guidance was also sought via Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings that were held during Phase 3 of the
Class EA process. These consultation processes are discussed further in subsequent sections of this ESR.
2.2.3 Phase 4 Environmental Study Report (ESR)

(ESR)
During Phase 4 of the Class EA, the Environmental Study Report was prepared to document the summary of
the rationale, and the planning, design and consultation process of the project through the earlier phases of the
Class EA. During Phase 4 of the Class EA, the Draft ESR was circulated for review by certain key relevant
agencies prior to ESR finalization. The Notice of Completion is included in Appendix C4. This Notice of
Completion was advertised in the Oakville Beaver local newspaper on April 1 and 8, 2010, and in the Halton
Compass and the Milton Champion local newspapers on April 2 and 9, 2010. The finalized ESR was made
available for review for a period of 30 days. The Notice of ESR Completion was also mailed to all parties
who had previously been contacted or who had indicated an interest in receiving direct notifications on this
project. The Notice of Completion was also provided to the Ministry of the Environment Regional Office,
EA Coordinator and to The Town of Oakville.
The ESR was made available for review for 30 calendar days from April 19, 2010 to May 19, 2010 at the
following locations:
Citizens Reference Library
1151 Bronte Road
Oakville, Ontario
905-825-6000
Town of Oakville
Clerks Department
1225 Trafalgar Road
Oakville, Ontario
905-845-6601
Oakville Central Library
120 Navy Street
Oakville, Ontario
905-815-2044
The Notice of Completion for the project also identified the procedures and deadlines for anyone who has
outstanding concerns with the project, which could not be resolved during discussion with Halton Region.
This procedure is to allow an interested party to request that the Minister of the Environment make an order
for the proponent to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) before proceeding with
the proposed undertaking. Part II of the EAA addresses individual environment assessment requirements.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 11
Any Part II Order requests must be submitted in writing to the Minister of the Environment at the following
address:
Hon. John Gerretsen
Minister of the Environment
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 15th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4D 1P5
The Notice of Completion also requested that copies of Part II Order requests should also be sent to:
Mr. Guo (Mickey) Liu, P.Eng.
Project Manager - Infrastructure Planning
Planning & Transportation Services Dept.
1151 Bronte Road
Oakville, Ontario
L6M 3L1
905-825-6000 x 7235
Mickey.Liu@halton.ca
Mr. Don Cane, P.Eng.
Project Manager
Hatch Mott MacDonald
15 Allstate Parkway, Suite 300
Markham, Ontario
L3R 5B4
905-943-9600 x 5840
Don.Cane@hatchmott.com
2.3 DecisionDecision-Making Process Flow Diagram

The Figure 2.2 below depicts the decision-making process for this Class Environmental Assessment. As
stated above, Phase 1 and 2 of the environmental assessment process were completed by the South Halton
Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update. The completion of this ESR fulfills Phases 3 and 4 of the process.
A Stage 1 Assimilation Capacity Study (ACS) and Flow Attentuation study were performed at the initiation
of the Class EA, and the results of these studies contributed to the screening of alternatives for the effluent
outfall. Based on the preferred outfall alternative, screening the alternatives for sewage treatment processes
and the routing of the effluent sewer was completed. A number of investigations were then undertaken to
evaluate the environmental implications of the alternatives. These investigations consisted of: socioeconomic, natural heritage, cultural heritage, archaeological, assimilative capacity study, and traffic impact
assessment. From the results of the environmental investigations, the recommended sewage treatment process
and effluent sewer route were selected. The recommended concepts were used to complete the conceptual
design and Environmental Study Report.
Page 12
Report Ref# 250101
Figure 2.2 Mid-Halton WWTP Expansion Phase IV/V Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Overall Design Process
3 Overview of WWTP Expansion Requirements

This section details the design requirements for the Phase IV & V expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP. The
existing conditions at the plant are first presented, in order to provide context for the undertaking. The design
criteria that were used to define the alternatives are then outlined. Numerous environmental investigations
(receiving water assessment, socio-economic assessment, natural heritage assessment, archaeological
assessment, etc.) were performed, and the results of these investigations are summarized in this section.
3.1 MidMid-Halton WWTP Information

Section 3.1 presents the existing performance data at the Mid-Halton WWTP, and outlines the design criteria
that have been proposed for the expansion.
3.1.1 Existing Conditions (Phase III Expansion to 75 MLD)

This section presents information on the plant at the time of the Phase III expansion, which is currently being
completed. This includes the existing layout of the site, wastewater characteristics and flows, plant
performance data, and odour control.
3.1.1.1 Location of the MidMid-Halton WWTP (Sewage Treatment Plant)

The Mid-Halton WWTP is located on North Service road between Third Line and Bronte in the Town of
Oakville. It borders the Deerfield Golf Course on the west and the Saw Whet Golf Course on the northwest,
Langtry Park on the northeast, and the Fourteen Mile Creek Lands on the east. Figure 3.1 presents a key plan
showing the location of the Mid Halton WWTP relative to adjacent properties and roadways.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 13
Figure 3.1 Mid-Halton WWTP and Surrounding Area
Upper Middle Road

West
Glen
Abbey
Bronte
Road
Third
Line
Saw Whet
Golf
Course
Langtry
Park
Deerfield
Golf Course
Mid-Halton
WWTP
QEW
3.1.1.2 Existing Site Layout

The following drawing illustrates the site layout including new facilities being constructed in the Phase III
expansion.
Page 14
Report Ref# 250101
Figure 3.2 Existing Phase III Site Layout
The topography of the site is a general slope from North West to South East (from top to bottom of the
drawing). To the North of the boundary fence, the land slopes into the valley of 14-Mile Creek.
3.1.1.3 Description of Existing Treatment Processes

The Mid-Halton Wastewater treatment Plant (WWTP) treats sewage collected from North Oakville and
Milton. This sewage is pumped into the WWTP by two pumping stations: The North Pumping Station and
the Third Line Pumping Station. Sewage that passes through the Mid-Halton WWTP is treated by the unit
processes described below. A schematic showing the wastewater treatment process is shown in Figure 3.3.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 15
Figure 3.3 Mid-Halton Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow Schematic

From North and
Third Line
Pumping Stations
Screens
Grit Tanks FeCl3
Primary
Clarifiers
Aeration
Tanks
UV Disinfection
At Oakville
Southwest
FeCl3 Secondary
Clarifiers
Effluent Outfall
To Lake Ontario
Sludge
Thickening
Anaerobic
Digestion
Influent From
Oakville
Southwest
Sludge
Dewatering
Biosolids Hauled
Offsite to Storage and
Beneficial Reuse
The process train of primary clarifiers followed by aeration tanks and secondary clarifiers is described as the
Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) process. A summary description of the individual unit processes are
provided herein.
1) Sewage Pumping
Sewage is pumped to the Mid-Halton WWTP through two pumping stations: the North Pumping Station and
the Third Line Pumping Station. The Third Line Pumping Station is equipped with four pumps (two duty,
one standby), and has a firm capacity of 131 ML/d, with one pump out of service. The North Pumping
Station is equipped with four pumps (three duty, one standby), and has a firm capacity of 100 ML/d with one
pump out of service.
2) Screening
In this process, sewage passes through a bar screen (with 25 mm clear space between bars) which removes
materials that would be detrimental to pumps and other downstream processes. Materials removed in this
screening process are collected in a waste bin and hauled to a municipal solid waste landfill.
Two screens are provided each with a capacity of 112.5 ML/day, for a total combined capacity of 225
ML/day (225,000 m3/d). A manual bar screen is provided as an emergency standby. Screenings from each of
the two screens are discharged to two screenings washing compactors, which in turn discharge to a conveyor
that discharges to a waste disposal bin.
The screening process was designed using a hydraulic and process capacity peak factor of 3.0.
3) Grit Removal
To ensure grit does not detrimentally affect downstream plant processes, grit is removed from the sewage
though detritor grit removal tanks. Materials removed in this process are collected in a waste bin and hauled
to a municipal solid waste landfill.
After sewage has passed through the bar screens, sewage then flows to two detritor tanks. Grit collected in
the storage hopper at the bottom of each grit tank is pumped via a slurry pump to a grit dewatering classifier.
The grit dewatering classifier discharges grit to a conveyor which in turn discharges dewatered grit (and
screenings) to a waste disposal bin.
The grit process was designed with a process capacity peak factor of 2.5 and a hydraulic capacity peak factor
of 3.0.
Page 16
Report Ref# 250101
4) Primary Clarifiers
Sewage discharged from the two detritor grit removal tanks enters four large primary clarifiers. In this
process, solids (primary sludge) settle to the bottom of the tank where they are collected and pumped to the
biosolids treatment building for further treatment prior to disposal. The four primary clarifiers operate in
parallel and discharge clarified wastewater effluent to the aeration tanks for further biological treatment.
The primary clarifiers at the Mid-Halton treatment plant were designed using a process capacity peak factor
of 2.0.
5) Aeration Tanks
Settled sewage from the primary clarifiers, discharges to aeration tanks, for further treatment where dissolved
organic pollutants are biologically removed by a population of micro-organisms.
The Mid-Halton WWTP is currently equipped with eight (8) rectangular aeration tanks and two (2) circular
aeration tanks. A total of eleven (11) blowers provide air to these tanks.
6) Secondary Clarifiers
Following the aeration tanks, biological solids or micro-organisms contained in the effluent are settled and
removed with large sedimentation tanks, or secondary clarifiers. A portion of the settled material, which is
known as Activated Sludge, is returned to the aeration tanks to maintain an adequate population of microorganisms for biological treatment. The remainder of the Activated Sludge is collected and pumped to the
biosolids treatment building for further treatment.
The Mid-Halton WWTP currently has eight (8) parallel secondary clarifiers. A total of 10 return activated
sludge pumps, 3 waste activated sludge pumps and scum removal and collection equipment are provided as
part of the process.
7) Phosphorus Removal
Wastewater in the process is mixed with small amounts of Ferric Chloride in order to precipitate, settle and
remove phosphorus. The Mid-Halton WWTP is provided with dual chemical injection points at both the inlet
of the primary and secondary clarifiers. The phosphorus removal system includes 2 chemical storage tanks,
and 3 chemical metering pumps.
8) Sludge Thickening
Waste Activated Sludge from the secondary clarifiers is thickened in order to reduce the volume, and assist
downstream sludge digestion and dewatering processes. Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) thickening is
accomplished using three (3) parallel rotary drum thickeners, which increases the solids content of the sludge
from about 1% to between 3 and 5%, and reduces the waste activated sludge volume by approximately 75%.
9) Sludge Digestion
Thickened waste activated sludge from the rotary drums, and raw primary sludge from the primary clarifiers
is pumped to the anaerobic digestion tanks where it is combined and processed. The Mid Halton WWTP has
three (3) anaerobic sludge digesters which processes the sludge so that pathogens in the sludge are reduced
and so that the sludge is stabilized. In this process, micro-organisms further digest the waste sludge in the
absence of oxygen (anaerobic). This results in a further reduction of sludge volume.
10) Sludge Dewatering
In this process, sludge from the anaerobic digestion process is dewatered via the use of two parallel
centrifuges. This process results in a sludge that is approximately 25-30% solids content, and has the
consistency of wet soil. The dewatered sludge from this process is collected and taken off-site for storage,
disposal or beneficial reuse.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 17
Sludge dewatering at the Mid-Halton WWTP is accomplished using two dewatering centrifuges(capacity 22
L/s and 2 dry tonnes per hour). Centrifuges discharge sludge cake to two sludge cake bins which store sludge
for final discharge and removal by truck for final disposal.
11) Effluent Disinfection and Discharge
Clarified effluent from the Mid Halton WWTPs secondary clarifiers discharges to an effluent pipe (1200 mm
to 1800 mm diameter) which runs to the Oakville Southwest WWTP. At the Oakville Southwest WWTP site,
Mid Halton and Oakville Southwest effluent combine together and flow to the effluent disinfection facilities.
Effluent is disinfected utilizing ultra-violet (UV) disinfection equipment prior to final discharge. The final
effluent is discharged to a 1800 mm diameter outfall pipe which extends approximately 1.0 kilometre into
Lake Ontario at a depth of ten metres for final effluent dispersion.
Figure 3.4 is an aerial photograph taken in October 2009 that identifies the treatment facilities for the Phase
III Expansion. The overall existing plant layout is presented in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.4 Aerial Photo of the Phase III Expansion in October 2009
Page 18
Report Ref# 250101
Figure 3.5 Existing Mid Halton WWTP Site Plan

Ex. North
Pumping
Station
Ex.
Biosolids
Building
Ex. Digestion
Control Building
Ex. Secondary
Digester
Ex. Primary
Digester
Ex. Aeration Tanks
Ex. Electrical
Substation
Ex. Primary
Digester
Ex. Blower
Building
Ex.
Detritor
Ex. Aeration Tanks

Ex. Plant
Parking
Ex. Aeration Tanks

Ex. Primary
Clarifiers
Ex. Laboratory
Ex. Inlet
Building
Ex.
Detritor
Ex. Aeration Tanks

Ex. Raw Sewage
Inlet Chamber
Ex. Administration
Building
Ex. Circular
Aeration Tank
Ex. Staff
Parking
Ex. Circular
Aeration Tank
Ex. Secondary
Clarifiers
Ex. Secondary
Clarifiers
3.1.1.4 Design Criteria for the Existing Plant

The Mid-Halton WWTP was designed to accommodate the raw sewage flows defined in Section 3.1.1.5 of
this report. In order to accommodate these flows and meet the effluent discharge criteria issued by the
Ministry of the Environment, the following design criteria were incorporated into the plant. The overall
design flow basis for the existing Mid-Halton WWTP is shown in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1 Overall Design Flow Basis for the Existing Mid-Halton WWTP
Parameter
Average Daily Flow (m3/d)
Peak Day Flow (m3/d) reported as 99 percentile flow
Peak Day Factor
Peak Instantaneous Flow (m3/d) reported as 99 percentile
Peak Instantaneous Factor
Report Ref# 250101
Design
75,000
150,000
2 X average flow
225,000
3 X average flow
Page 19
The peak factors used for designing of the various processes at the Mid-Halton WWTP (as described above)
are described in the following Table 3.2. The design process capacity is the capacity at which the process
will effectively meet the design criteria. The design hydraulic capacity is the flow throughput capacity.
Table 3.2 Design Flow Peak Factors for the Mid-Halton WWTP Existing Unit Processes
Process
Design Process Capacity
Design Hydraulic Capacity
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Screening
Grit Removal
Primary Clarifiers
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Clarifiers
The design effluent quality (effluent objectives), are provided below in Table 3.3 and are extracted from the
current Certificate of Approval for the Mid Halton WWTP.
Table 3.3 Design Effluent Quality (Objectives) for the Mid-Halton WWTP
Average Concentration (mg/L)
15
15
0.6
6.0 (May 1 November 30)
10.0 (Dec 1 April 30)
CBOD5
Total Phosphorus
Total Ammonia Nitrogen
For compliance, effluent criteria are less stringent than those stated above. Typical engineering practice is to
design for the more stringent effluent objectives, to provide a margin of safety for effluent compliance.
3.1.1.5 Wastewater Characteristics and Flows

As described previously, the current Mid-Halton WWTP was designed to meet the following wastewater
flows (see Table 3.4 below):
Table 3.4 Overall Design Flow Basis for the Existing Mid-Halton WWTP
Parameter
Average Daily Flow (m3/d)
Peak Day Flow (m3/d)
Peak Instantaneous Flow (m3/d)
Design
75,000
150,000
225,000
The following Table 3.5 shows the wastewater characteristics used for design of the existing Mid Halton
WWTP.
Table 3.5 Wastewater Characteristics Used for Existing Mid-Halton WWTP Design
Parameter
BOD5
TSS
TP
TKN
Page 20
Concentration (mg/L)
Average
Peak Month
200
236
250
368
6
8
34
42
Loading (kg/d)
Average
Peak Month
15000
17700
18750
27600
450
600
2550
3150
Report Ref# 250101
The effluent limits used for the design of the Mid-Halton WWTP are shown in the following Table 3.6:
Table 3.6 Mid-Halton WWTP Effluent Limits
Parameter
Objective
Compliance
BOD5 and TSS (mg/L)
15
25
TP (mg/L)
0.8
1.0
Total Ammonia Nitrogen 6.0 (May 1 November 30)
10 (May 1- November 30)
(mg/L)
10.0 (December 1 April 30)
20.0 (December 1- April 30)
Chlorine Residual
n/a
n/a
E.coli (#/100mL)
150
200
*Effluent Limits are from MOE Amended Certificate of Approval 5961-7WSKJG dated November 2, 2009.
Typical engineering practice is to design for the more stringent effluent objectives, to provide a margin of
safety for effluent compliance.
3.1.1.6 Existing Plant Performance Data

The Phase II configuration for the plant has a good operating record. There have been no odour complaints
since 2003. The plant is able to accommodate wet weather related peak influent flow volumes.
Analysis of the Water Quality Reports for 2008 yields the Mid-Halton WWTP performance data presented in
Table 3.7 below.
In 2008, provincial water quality objectives were met for CBOD5, Total Suspended Solids, Total Phosphorus,
Total Ammonia Nitrogen and NH3-N Loading. Table 3.7 gives an indication of plant performance, showing
that it is operating well within the effluent objectives.
Table 3.7 Existing Plant Performance Data
Effluent constituent
Measure
Objective
Avg.
CBOD5
mg/L
15
1.6
mg/L
15
5.7
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
0.8
0.4
*Objective based on effluent requirements at the time from MOE Amended Certificate of Approval 225876YJNM dated September 13, 2007
The Phase III plant expansion is being commissioned at the time of writing this report, so no plant
performance data are available for this configuration. However, the expanded plant will use similar process
components to the Ph II plant, so similar performance may reasonably be expected. New odour control
facilities for the headworks and a new, odour controlled, bio-solids handling building, have also been
commissioned with the intent of further improving odour control performance.
3.1.1.7 Existing Biosolids Generation Rates

The existing biosolids generation rates were developed on a mass balance around the Mid-Halton WWTP at
the existing flow of 75,000 m3/d. The mass balance was based on average anticipated performance for
primary treatment and secondary treatment processes. Mass balances were prepared for average month and
peak month loading conditions. Table 3.8 summarizes the total biosolids generation rates.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 21
Table 3.8 Existing Biosolids Generation Rate (1) (at 75,000 m3/d)
Source
Raw sludge
Waste activated sludge
Sludge into anaerobic digester
Biosolids into dewatering
Biosolids Generation Rate (kg/d)

Average Month
Peak Month
10,030
14,630
(2)
(2)
10,530
12,400
20,030
26,400
15,800
20,800
Notes:
(1) Based on the Mid-Halton WWTP Pre-Design Report, March 2005.
(2) Waste activated sludge generation rate include chemical sludge from ferric chloride addition for phosphorus removal.
3.1.1.8 Odour Control

The Mid-Halton WWTP is equipped with two odour control units, one installed in the headworks building,
and one installed in the biosolids building. The headworks odour control unit is a 6,000 cfm carbon
adsorption unit. The biosolids odour control unit is a 6,000 cfm biological odour control system which
contains a biofilter.
3.1.1.9 MOE Certificate of Approval

The Mid-Halton WWTP operates under a Certificate of Approval issued by the Ministry of the Environment
(MOE), which gives licence for the plant to operate under the Ontario Water Resources Act. The Certificate
of Approval defines the approved plant capacity and effluent discharge criteria. The current Certificate of
Approval 5961-7WSKLG, dated November 3, 2009, can be seen in Appendix A1.
3.1.2 Proposed Design Criteria

Criteria for Expanded MidMid-Halton WWTP (Phase IV and V
Expansion)
The design capacity of the upgraded pumping and unit treatment processes was based on various criteria,
including, but not limited to, the following:
Raw sewage flows and strength;
Peaking factors and maximum unit process loadings;
Effluent limits and objectives.
The Mid Halton WWTP Phase IV & V expansion will be incorporate the necessary flexibility to perform
within the expected range of influent sewage characteristics and flows. All components of the treatment plant
will be capable of conveying the expected peak sewage flow rates without overtopping channels and/or tanks.
The design of various unit treatment processes will accommodate the design organic and inorganic loading
rates.
The following sub-sections outline the design considerations for the Mid-Halton WWTP phases IV and V
expansion, based on recent observed operating characteristics.
3.1.2.1 Flow Basis

Historical daily flow data were analyzed for the period 2004-2008 and used to develop average and peak
flows through the plant. Flow parameters are presented in Table 3.9.
Page 22
Report Ref# 250101
Table 3.9 Historic Flows and Peak Factors (2004-2008) (1)

Parameter
3
Average day flow (m /d)
3
Peak day flow (m /d)
3
Peak instantaneous flow (m /d)
Peak day factor
Peak instantaneous factor
2004
28,080
63,880
86,370
2.3
3.1
2005
31,690
70,000
118,700
2.2
3.7
2006
35,940
82,700
129,600
2.3
3.6
2007
33,680
69,430
110,770
2.1
3.3
2008
47,200
116,200
129,600
2.5
2.7
Average
35,300
80,400
115,000
2.3
3.3
Notes:
(1) Based on Annual Mid-Halton WWTP Performance Monitoring Report (2004-2008), Region of Municipality of Halton.
The proposed average day flow of the raw sewage is 125,000 m3/day for the Mid-Halton WWTP phases IV
and V expansion. The expanded plant will be designed to accommodate the sidestream liquid flow defined in
Section 3.1.2.2 of this Report, which is estimated to be 5,000 m3/d. Therefore, the total flow to be treated is
130,000 m3/d.
To account for daily variation in flow, a peak factor of 2.0 will be used for peak day conditions and a peak
factor of 3.5 will be used for peak instantaneous flow in the design based on the above historical flow data
review.
This approach is consistent with the previous Phase III Design for the existing plant (see Table 3.4). Using a
design factor of 2.0 for sizing unit processes has historically provided a high effluent quality (refer to Table
3.7). Also as plant flows increase, it is expected that measured daily peak flow factor will decrease.
Furthermore, a peak factor of 2.0 is typically recommended for a large WWTP (Recommended Standards for
Wastewater Facilities, 2004). Therefore the design peak day factor of 2.0 is a robust approach and is
planned to be adopted for the Phase IV and V design. For these reasons, the project team determined that the
historical peak day factor of 2.3 shown in Table 3.9 was not an appropriate design factor for the expanded
plant.
Increasing the design peak instantaneous peak factor from 3.0 to 3.5 for hydraulically sizing of pipes, and
channels will provide added insurance that there are no potential hydraulic bottlenecks throughout the plant
expansion.
The overall design flow basis for the expanded Mid-Halton WWTP is summarized in Table 3.10.
Table 3.10 Flow Design Basis for the Expanded Mid-Halton WWTP(1)
Parameter
Average day flow
Peak day flow
Peak instantaneous flow
Flow (m /d)
130,000
260,000
455,000
Factor
-2.0
3.5
Notes:
(1)
Design flow includes allowance for sidestream flow addition.
Based on the above design peak factors, the design basis for the various treatment unit processes for the Phase
IV and V expansions are described in Table 3.11.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 23
Table 3.11 Peak Factor Used for Unit Process Design (1)
Process
Raw sewage pumping
Screening
Grit removal
Primary treatment
Aeration
Secondary Clarification
UV disinfection
Design Process
(2)
Capacity
(3)
N/A
3.5
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Design Hydraulic
(2)
Capacity
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Notes:
(1)
Based on historical flow for 2004-2008 and Unit Process Design Basis of MOE Design Guidelines for Sewage Works (2008).
(2) Design process capacity: is the capacity at which the process will effectively meet the effluent criteria; Design hydraulic
capacity: is the flow throughput capacity for the design of channels and flow conveyance structural within the plant.
(3)
N/A: not applicable.
There is the potential that there may be re-evaluations and adjustments of the above peaking factors during the
subsequent detailed design process. However none of these adjustments would significantly affect the initial
design concepts proposed in this Environmental Study Report.
3.1.2.2 Wastewater Characteristics and Mass Loadings

Table 3.13 presents the historical influent raw sewage loading characteristics from 2004-2008 at the MidHalton WWTP. The raw sewage parameter includes 5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD5), total
suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN).
Table 3.12 Historical Raw Sewage Characteristics (2004-2008)
Parameter
BOD5
Total suspended solids
Total phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Average
Peak month
160
210
210
320
5.26
7.01
37.6
46.9
Notes:
(1) Based on Annual Mid-Halton WWTP Performance Monitoring Report (2004-2008), Region of Municipality of Halton.
The impacts from the addition of sidestream liquid into raw sewage stream from waste activated sludge
(WAS) thickening filtrate, digestion supernatant, dewatering centrate in the treatment plant and potential
addition of the supernatant and dewatering centrate from the Biosolids Management Center (BMC) were also
investigated. A design average daily sidestream flow was estimated by prorating the existing sidestream flow
rate to the design flow. Design sidestream liquid concentrations were developed based on historical data from
2003 to 2008. Table 3.13 provides a summary of the design combined influent wastewater characteristics and
mass loadings at average months and peak months, with sidestream liquid addition.
The results outlined in the Table 3.13 indicate that the sidestream liquid addition will have minor impacts on
the plant treatment capacity with increased flow and loadings. The design sidestream wastewater flow is
5,000 m3/d, which increases the proposed average raw sewage flow of 125,000 m3/d by 4%. The strength of
sewage is increased approximately from 10 to 19% for different parameters (i.e. BOD5, TSS, TP and TKN).
However, the combined influent wastewater is still medium strength wastewater.
Page 24
Report Ref# 250101
Table 3.13 Design Influent Wastewater Characteristics (1)

Parameter
Average
Peak Month
Loading (kg/d)
Average
Peak Month
(2)
Raw Sewage
3
Average daily flow (m /d)
BOD5
160
210
Total phosphorus
6
38
Sidestream Liquid (WAS Thickening Filtrate)
3
Average flow (m /d)
BOD5
100
100
Total phosphorus
1
(6)
5
(3)
Sidestream Liquid (Digester Supernatant)
3
Average flow (m /d)
BOD5
Total phosphorus
(6)
125,000
210
320
7
47
20,000
26,250
750
4,750
26,250
40,000
875
5,875
373
373
4
19
485
560
9
23
3730
130
150
2
6
80
2600
3900
3800
8700
115
330
500
700
Parameter
Average
Peak Month
(4)
Sidestream Liquid (Dewatering Centrate)
3
Average flow (m /d)
880
208
304
9
40
312
696
26
56
Loading (kg/d)
Average
Peak Month
BOD5
2600
3900
2,288
3800
8700
3,344
Total phosphorus
115
330
101
(6)
500
700
440
(5)
Future Sidestream Liquid from BMC (Supernatant and/or dewatering centrate)
3
Average flow (m /d)
690
BOD5
3700
5600
2,553
200
500
138
Total phosphorus
25
72
17
(6)
800
1120
552
Combined Influent Wastewater
3
Average daily flow (m /d)
130,000
BOD5
190
260
25,400
230
380
30,400
Total phosphorus
7
10
880
44
56
5,800
Report Ref# 250101
3,432
7,656
290
616
3,864
345
50
773
34,300
49,300
1,250
7,300
Page 25
Notes:
(1) Flow and loadings includes allowance for sidestream liquid addition
(2) Based on historical data of raw sewage characteristics for 2004 to 2008
(3) Based on historical data from the year 2004 to 2008.
(4) No historical data for dewatering centrate characteristics. The data was assumed based on based on Metcalf & Eddy (2003).
(5) Based on historical data for 2003 to 2007 in biosolids management center (BMC).
(6) Assume the total ammonia nitrogen is 100% of total Kjeldahl nitrogen in sidestream liquid.
3.1.2.3 Effluent Criteria

Effluent design objectives and compliance criteria were established through the undertaking of a detailed
Assimilative Capacity Study and consultation with the MOE. The MOE has indicated that a non-acutely toxic
effluent will be required for the expanded Mid-Halton WWTP, as follows:
Non-toxicity with respect to chlorine residual
Non-toxicity with respect to ammonia, with the current objective as 0.1 mg/L of un-ionized ammonia
Table 3.14 summarizes the proposed effluent objectives and compliance criteria for the expanded Mid-Halton
WWTP.
Table 3.14 Design Effluent Criteria for the Mid-Halton WWTP Expansion
Parameter
Objective
CBOD5 and TSS (mg/L)
15
TP (mg/L)
0.6
Total Ammonia Nitrogen 6.0 (May 1 November 30)
(mg/L)
10.0 (December 1 April 30)
E.coli (#/100mL)
n/a
Compliance
25
0.8
10 (May 1- November 30)
20.0 (December 1- April 30)
200
Notes:
(1)
Seasonal average May to November
(2)
Seasonal average December to April
3.1.2.4 Biosolids Generation Rate

For the expanded Mid-Halton WWTP, the biosolids treatment process is as follows: the raw sludge from
primary clarifiers and the rotary drum thickeners (RDTs) thickened waste activated sludge (WAS, generated
from the secondary treatment) are sent to the anaerobic digester for stabilization. After digestion, the digested
sludge (referred to as liquid biosoilds) is transferred to centrifuges for dewatering. Dewatered biosolids are
sent to agricultural lands. The centrate is returned to the plant headworks for further treatment.
Design biosolids generation rates for the expanded mid-Halton WWTP were developed. A solids mass
balance model was developed for the expanded design capacity of 130,000 m3/d. The mass balance was
based on average anticipated performance for primary treatment and secondary treatment processes. Mass
balances were prepared for average month and peak month loading conditions. Table 3.15 summarizes the
design biosolids generation rates.
Page 26
Report Ref# 250101
Table 3.15 Design Biosolids Generation Rates (1)
Source
(2)
Raw sludge
(3)
Waste activated sludge (thickened)
(4)
Sludge into anaerobic digester
(5)
Biosolids into dewatering
Biosolids Generation Rate (kg/d)

Average Month
Peak Month
16,400
27,200
16,200
21,200
32,600
48,400
22,820
33,900
Notes:
(1) The value includes the solids generated from sidestream.addition.
(2) Based on influent wastewater characteristics and TSS removal of 50% in primary clarifiers (which is the minimum design
removal criteria used for the primary clarifier design refer to Section 5.4.5).
(3) Based on a typical waste activated sludge production rate of approximately 1.0 kg TSS/kg BOD (which is within the range given
in the MOE Design Guidelines, including chemical phosphorus removal) with chemical phosphorus removal. WAS generation
rate here includes chemical sludge from ferric chloride addition for phosphorus removal.
(4) Raw sludge and thickened WAS fed to digesters for digestion. Assume a ratio of volatile suspended solids (VSS) to total
suspended solids of 0.75 and a VSS destruction rate of 40% during sludge digestion (which is a slightly conservative value based
on VSS destruction levels as suggested in the MOE Design Guidelines).
(5) Digested sludge (liquid biosolids) fed to centrifuges for dewatering.
3.1.2.5 Odour Control

Although there is no record of public odour complaints specifically linked to emissions or activities at the
Mid Halton WWTP, some key areas which could potentially produce odour, would be provided with emission
control equipment as preventative measure.
It is planned to provide odour control equipment at the North Pumping Station, and expand odour control in
the Headworks Building if deemed necessary.
For design purposes it is proposed that an air evacuation rate of 15 air changes per hour would be provided, to
ventilate areas for the removal of odour constituents (i.e. Hydrogen Sulphide and organics). Natural sewer
ventilation rates at the North Sewage pumping station would be calculated as a check to ensure odour control
ventilation rates are adequate.
3.2 Receiving Water Assessment

As part of the environmental assessment process, it was necessary to assess the impact of an increase in
effluent discharge from the Mid-Halton WWTP on the receiving water quality in Lake Ontario. Treated
effluent from the expanded WWTP must meet Ontarios regulatory water quality requirements as outlined in
the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE)'s publications: Policies, Guidelines and
Provincial Water Quality Objectives of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOE 1994a), (refer to
Section 3.1.1.9) and Deriving Receiving-Water Based, Point-Source Effluent Requirements for Ontario
Waters (MOEE, 1994b), as well as satisfy the limits that MOE is likely to require in the future Certificate of
Approval.
For the Phase IV/V expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP, Baird and Associates was retained as part of the
study team to undertake an Assimilation Capacity Study (ACS) to investigate ambient Lake conditions, and
how increases in WWTP flows, and possible changes in effluent quality would affect water quality in the
lake. Various discharge alternatives, including combined Mid-Halton and Oakville Southwest WWTP
Report Ref# 250101
Page 27
effluent sewer and separated effluent sewers for the two WWTPs were modelled. Alternative discharge
distances offshore were also modelled.
The project team met with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) on February 11, 2009 to discuss the
approach that would be taken to carry out the effluent dispersion modelling as part of the ACS. A formal
technical memo was submitted to the MOE outlining the approach that would be taken for numerical
modelling. This memo can be found in Appendix B1. The objectives of the ACS were as follows:
To determine impacts of the proposed effluent discharge from the WWTP expansion on the receiving
water in both the near-field mixing zone, and the far-field mixing zone;
To demonstrate that the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs) can be met;
To determine design requirements of the new outfall/diffuser, as required; and
To prepare an ACS report for submission to MOE for approval.
At the meeting with MOE, the conclusions of the ACS produced during the Phase III Expansion Class EA for
the Mid-Halton WWTP were reviewed. The results indicated that an increase in flow from 75MLD to
125MLD, at the same concentration limits, and with the existing diffuser configuration and location would
likely result in exceedence of the PWQOs for total phosphorus. Ambient conditions in Lake Ontario were also
discussed at this meeting. It was confirmed that the U.S. EPA Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System
(CORMIX) and the Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) MIKE3 model would be utilized to simulate the water
quality impacts in the near-field and far-field mixing zones, respectively.
In the Phase IV and V WWTP expansion ACS, CORMIX was used to assess the impacts of the effluent
plume on water quality at the edge of the mixing zone (characterized as half the outfall length from the
diffuser). MIKE3 was used to assess the impacts of the effluent plume at locations beyond the near-field
mixing zone (including the Oakville and Burloak water treatment plant intakes and the shoreline). The
MIKE3 model was also used to evaluate the effects of the overlapping plumes from the Mid-Halton and
Oakville Southwest water treatment plant outfalls.
Initial model runs were performed in order to recreate the results obtained during the Phase III expansion
Class EA ACS, thus providing continuity between the two studies. Key parameters for ambient conditions
were taken into account including currents, temperature, pH, bathymetry, water levels and water quality
indicators. During the MOE meeting it was determined that unionized ammonia would have to be evaluated at
two locations: at the end-of-pipe for acute toxicity, using the pH of the effluent; and also at the edge of the
mixing zone using the pH of the lake water to compare predictions with the PWQO. In the simulation of the
Phase IV/V expansion conditions, a back-calculation process was followed such that the water quality limits
were used to evaluate whether the treatment processes at the plant was adequate. Based on the outfall/diffuser
evaluation and recommendations, any required corresponding process design changes for the treatment plant
were determined.
Effluent from the Mid-Halton WWTP is currently discharged into Lake Ontario via a combined outfall shared
with the Oakville Southwest WWTP. The existing combined outfall discharges effluent approximately 640 m
offshore of Coronation Park in Oakville at an approximate water depth of 8.2 m. The first modelling runs
were undertaken to determine if it would be possible to meet the required PWQOs for the increased Phase
IV/V Mid-Halton and the Oakville Southwest WWTP combined flows at the existing shared outfall location.
The results of this modelling indicated that, for the Phase IV/V Mid-Halton and the Oakville Southwest
WWTP combined flows, it would not be possible to meet the PWQOs at the existing outfall location with the
current treatments plants performance. The Stage 1 ACS report outlining treatment requirements if the
existing combined sewer was used can be found in Appendix B2.
Through a detailed evaluation as part of the EA process, it was determined that a new, separate, outfall for the
expanded Mid-Halton WWTP would be the preferred alternative. (This evaluation process is discussed further
Page 28
Report Ref# 250101
in Section 4.2 of this ESR.) A series of model runs were completed to determine how far the new outfall
would need to be located offshore in order to meet the PWQOs. It was recognized that the Oakville Southwest
plant would continue to discharge effluent from the existing outfall, such that the impacts of the overlapping
plumes from the Oakville Southwest and Mid-Halton plants were also considered in the dilution model.
Based on the modelling completed for the ACS, it was recommended that a new outfall sewer should be
constructed to 1800 m offshore, with an additional 300 m long diffuser section to 2,100m offshore. With this
outfall and diffuser length, predicted dilutions showed that the PWQOs could be met for all seasons for unionized ammonia and total phosphorus at the edge of mixing zone, located 900 m from the diffuser. Far-field
modelling also predicted that PWQOs could be met at the Oakville and Burloak Water Supply Plant intakes
and at the shoreline.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) also applies to intakes, such that the concentration of
total ammonia at intakes is limited to 0.500 mg/L. Table 1 below shows that the total ammonia
concentrations at the two intakes in the study area (Oakville and Burloak) are significantly lower than the
GLWQA total ammonia limit. The concentrations at the intake from the Mid Halton plume alone, and from
the combined Mid-Halton and OSW plumes are listed. The concentrations of ammonia nitrogen were
calculated using the minimum (worst case) dilutions in the water column predicted by the far-field model
(refer to Table 4.6 in the Stage 2 ACS report), the total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) effluent limits and
objectives from the Mid-Halton C of A dated November 3, 2009, and the ambient 75th percentile
concentration of TAN (refer to Table 3.3 in the Stage 2 ACS report). Total ammonia was calculated from
TAN by multiplying by a factor of 1.216, which is the ratio of Ammonia to Nitrogen (Emerson et al., 1975).
Table 3.16 Total Ammonia (mg/L) calculated from the Mid-Halton TAN Effluent Limits or Objectives at
the Oakville and Burloak Intakes
Season
Minimum
Dilution in
Water
Column
from farfield model
results
Spring
(Mar.-Apr.)
Summer
2000
Spring
(Mar.-Apr.)
Summer
340
1450
650
Oakville Intake
Total
Ammonia
(mg/L)
from TAN
Effluent
Limit
0.038
Total
Ammonia
(mg/L)
from TAN
Effluent
Objective
Minimum
Dilution in
Water
Column
from farfield model
results
Mid-Halton Outfall only
0.032
1800
Burloak Intake
Total
Total
Ammonia
Ammonia
(mg/L) from
(mg/L) from
TAN
TAN Effluent
Effluent
Objective
Limit
0.020
0.017
350
Combined (Mid-Halton and OSW Outfall)
0.097
0.061
1750
0.031
0.023
300
0.039
0.032
0.047
0.033
0.039
0.032
0.053
0.036
The Stage 2 ACS report outlining the process and results of the ACS was produced by Baird and Associates
for submission to MOE for review and approval. The complete report can also be found in Appendix B3.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 29
3.3 SocioSocio-economic,
economic, Natural Heritage, Archaeological and Cultural Heritage
Assessments
The following section summarizes the environmental investigations that were conducted as part of the EA
process.
Socio-economic Impact Assessment

3.3.1 SocioSocio-Economic Impact Assessments (SEIAs) are initiated in the early stages of the planning process to better
enable project managers to anticipate possible impacts before significant resources are invested in proposed
initiatives. While time and cost-savings are important, the primary objective of the SEIA is to protect and
enhance quality of life by ensuring potential socio-economic impacts are lessened and responsible decisions
are made.
It was determined early in the project that a tunnelling approach would be used for the construction of the
effluent sewer. This decision-making process is outlined in detail in Sections 4.3 and 4.4. As part of the
tunnelling process, shaft sites would be required along the proposed effluent sewer route.
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited (HSAL) was retained to undertake a SEIA and Community Profile
to evaluate the impacts of six potential shaft sites associated with three short-listed effluent sewer alignments
(shown in Figure 3.5), as well as the proposed expansion on the plant site. The SEIA focused on people and
how their daily lives may be impacted by proposed construction and/or operations of the Mid-Halton WWTP
and potential shaft sites. Cumulative impacts were identified and a comprehensive set of mitigation measures
recommended. Based on the evaluation of the shaft sites, a preferred effluent sewer alignment was identified.
The preferred alignment requires three shaft sites.
Page 30
Report Ref# 250101
Figure 3.6 Effluent Sewer Routes and Proposed Shaft Sites - Short List
The following shaft sites were evaluated:

Site 1: Mid-Halton
Site 2: South of Bronte Station
Site 3: Third Line and Speers Road
Site 4: Third Line and Lakeshore Road
Site 5: Coronation Park
Site 6: Third Line (Southern Terminus)
The shaft sites and proposed plant expansion were evaluated against the following criteria (or decision rules):
Land-use
Noise
Dust and vibration
Transportation
Aesthetics
Property requirement
Odour
Community cohesiveness
In terms of net impact, Sites 1 and 2 were found to have a minor impact on the socio-economic environment,
Sites 3, 4 and 5 were determined to have a moderate impact and Site 6 was deemed as having a major impact.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 31
Because Sites 1, 2 and 3 shared a common route with the three different effluent sewer alignments, the socioeconomic impact of Sites 4, 5 and 6, and particularly of Sites 5 and 6, as these are the only proposed outfall
locations, were more critical for determining the most preferred alignment.
The most preferred effluent sewer route from the standpoint of socio-economic impact was identified as
Alternative B (see Figure 3.6). In addition, the Coronation Park shaft site was favoured over the Third Line
(at southern terminus) shaft site. It was also concluded from the evaluation process that the proposed
expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP would result in a minor impact to the socio-economic
environment surrounding the WWTP site.

The complete Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Report can be found in Appendix B5.
3.3.2 Natural Heritage Assessment

As part of the Class EA activities, Aquafor Beech Limited undertook an environmental inventory assessment
of the project, including an assessment of the treatment plant site, the proposed shaft site alternatives, and a
fish habitat assessment in Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the proposed effluent diffuser section.
From the assessment of the treatment plant site, it was determined that the plant is located on the south slope
physiographic region which is characterized by sand plain. The site is designated as Greenlands B by the
Halton Official Plan. It was determined that there are no areas of natural or scientific interest (ANSI) or
provincially or locally classified wetlands in proximity to the Mid-Halton plant (except as discussed below)
and there are no significant woodlands identified on the site. Vegetation is dominated by old field and
hedgerows, providing a visual buffer between the Mid-Halton property and the residential communities to the
east. None of the vegetation resources on site are significant. The site is located west and south of the 14 Mile
Creek valley, which is designated by the Region of Halton Official Plan as an Environmentally Sensitive Area
(ESA).
Following the issuance of the Notice of Commencement for the project, correspondence was received from
Conservation Halton expressing concerns about the environmental sensitivity of the 14 Mile Creek Valley.
The letter from Conservation Halton advised of: the need for geotechnical assessment of bank stability for any
proposed works in close proximity to the top of the bank; the presence of the significant woodlot within 14
Mile Creek Valley was identified; the designation of 14 Mile Creek Valley as an ESA; the presence of a
wildlife habitat corridor and linkages within the valley; the presence of habitat for species-at-risk in the
valley; the presence of a population of red side dace, a fish species recently uplisted to endangered status; a
request that new infrastructure be located outside of the valley features; the need to discuss in any proposal,
quality, quantity and erosion control measures proposed for stormwater management; the identification,
investigation and discussion of hydrogeological impacts in terms of ground water recharge/discharge areas,
the need to recommend mitigation measures for any ground water impacts; as well as other issues that would
have to be addressed for proposed work in or near the 14 Mile Creek Valley.
It was confirmed from the environmental inventory that 14 Mile Creek is a well wooded valley feature with a
permanent flowing watercourse that supports redside dace. The valley supports a range of habitats for
wildlife species and represents a wintering and staging area for saw-whet and long-eared owls. None of the
activities associated with the proposed WWTP expansion will impact the habitat of redside dace and Level 1
(enhanced) stormwater quality treatment will be required on the plant site. It was noted that the proposed
structure adjacent to the existing ring road nearest to the 14 Mile Creek valley is partially contained within
Conservation Haltons preliminary regulated area. The regulated area extends to this point because of a
number of riparian wetland features located within the 14 Mile Creek valley that form part of the 14 Mile
Creek Valley and Extension ESA (ESA # 12) identified in the Region of Haltons Natural Heritage Report
Page 32
Report Ref# 250101
(2008). The limit of the regulated area is based on a 120 m setback from these riparian wetland features.
However, since the riparian features are totally contained within the valley, this 120 m setback would not be
applicable. As such, the appropriate setback was determined to be 7.5 m offset from the stable top of bank of
the valley. Based on a site visit and discussions with Conservation Halton staff, the proposed expansion
appears to be well outside of this setback limit, however detailed geotechnical investigation will be
undertaken during detailed design to verify the location of stable top-of-bank.
The environmental characteristics of the lands underlying the proposed building and structure extensions are
highly disturbed in nature, primarily gravel parking, gravel roads and construction areas with construction
materials. There are some minor areas with manicured to rough-cut lawns and a hedgerow-like feature with
some low quality trees such as Manitoba maple, which will be lost.
It was concluded from the natural environment inventory that there would be no impacts on any natural
features of any significance on the plant site as a result of the proposed expansion. However, it was
recommended that appropriate construction mitigation measures be established, including erosion and
sediment control, in order to prevent impacts to the valley setback and valley of 14 Mile Creek. It is
recommended that, prior to construction, a site walk with Conservation Halton staff be completed to designate
the top of bank and setback area and to confirm appropriate temporary fencing and erosion and sediment
control measures such as sediment control fencing, catchbasin sediment barriers, rock check dams and
temporary soil stabilization of bare-soil areas.
With respect to the alternative tunnel shaft sites, the natural environment assessment indicated a cultural
meadow community in and around the former waste transfer station where the Mid-Halton shaft site
alternative is proposed to be located. Although this meadow community is not significant, it is recommended
to be retained to the extent possible. If practical, it is recommended that the footprint of the proposed MidHalton shaft site should be shifted approximately 30 m to the northwest to better avoid direct impact to this
community. None of the proposed shaft sites contain any special status species or habitats, including ESAs ,
wetlands, rare and endangered species or their habitats. It was noted that there are mature ornamental trees
located adjacent to the proposed Coronation Park so it has been recommended that a tree preservation plan
should be incorporated in the design/construction phase to protect mature trees that lie outside of the main
construction footprint at any of the construction sites. Based on the presently proposed location of this shaft
site, it appears that any mature trees are outside of the area of impact of this site, but this situation should be
reviewed during the subsequent design phase to ensure that adverse impact to mature trees in this location is
avoided. Apart from these mature trees, the shaft sites are all either manicured lawn (Coronation Park) or
highly cultural habitats in industrial settings. These highly cultural features include species such as goldenrod,
dock, milkweed, wild carrot and teasel. Urban wildlife such as grey squirrel, raccoon and meadow voles may
use these sites. Concerns were raised regarding surface water run off from construction sites. Since it is
proposed to deal with surface water run off and ground water intrusion into the tunnel by conveyance to the
sanitary sewer system, it is expected that surface water impacts can be avoided. Standard erosion and
sediment control measures, as outlined above, are also proposed to minimize impacts from surface water runoff. With proper erosion and sediment control, none of the sites will pose a risk to any drainage features that
may be nearby.
A fish habitat assessment study was undertaken in the proposed area of the effluent diffuser system. This
investigation determined that bottom substrates in the vicinity are predominantly silt at very limited depths of
about 10 cm underlain by shale bedrock. No zebra mussels were determined to be located in the proposed
effluent diffuser area. A number of special status fish species inhabit Lake Ontario and may at some time
utilize habitats in the vicinity of the proposed diffuser outfall, although the habitat found here is not
considered critical or survival habitat for any of these species:
Report Ref# 250101
Page 33
Species at Risk: American eel, deepwater sculpin

Highly valued recreational species: lake trout, lake whitefish, rainbow trout, Chinook salmon
Forage species that are under pressure in Lake Ontario: lake herring, deepwater ciscoe
Based on the habitat conditions determined by sounding and substrate sampling, substrates in the vicinity of
the proposed diffuser outfall were determined to be a layer of fine silt 10 to 20 cm in depth, underlain by shale
bedrock. There were no aquatic macrophytes present, and the depth range is in the order of 25 30 m. This
habitat type is considered to be generalized fish habitat, typical of offshore substrates along the north shore of
Lake Ontario. It is one of the dominant habitats in the offshore zone and is not considered to offer any
specialized or critical fish habitat such as spawning or nursery habitat. It was concluded that the typical use
of this habitat by fish would be for generalized feeding/foraging by benthic species such as lake and round
whitefish, and it may also be utilized periodically by species for general inshore offshore migrations. It was
also concluded that since there is no relief (the lake bottom in the area is flat with no unusual features), there
is no specific attraction to this area that would cause fish to congregate, thus no spawning or nursery habitat
was found to be present. Provided that the effluent diffuser can be constructed as currently proposed by
boring diffuser risers from a barge into the tunnel alignment, it is assumed that this construction activity
would represent low risk to fish and fish habitat. It has been calculated that the area of impact on the lakebed
of the diffuser riser construction would be approximately 5.4 m2. It is assumed that no fish habitat
compensation should be necessary.
The Natural Heritage Assessment of Potential Shaft Sites as well as the Fish Habitat Assessment can be found
in Appendices B6 and B7.
3.3.3 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was commissioned to undertake a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment for
the study area, in order to determine whether the expansion site and shaft sites have any archaeological
significance.
It was determined from the State 1 Archaeological Assessment that there are 16 archaeological sites registered
within 1 km of the overall study area. Two of these sites, Fence Line (AiGw-57) and Centre of Field 1
(AiGw-58), are located within the Mid-Halton WWTP Expansion study area. However, both sites are isolated
finds of undetermined cultural affiliation and additional work was not recommended at either site. A review
of the geography and local nineteenth century land use of the study area suggested that the study area has
potential for the identification of Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archaeological sites.
The property inspection determined that portions of the existing Mid Halton WWTP have been heavily
disturbed by previous construction activities, and no further archaeological assessment is required. However,
three locations within the expansion area have remained relatively undisturbed, and exhibit archaeological site
potential.
The property inspection of the potential shaft sites determined that the Speers and Third Line, South of Bronte
Station, and the Mid Halton Plant locations have been previously disturbed, negating archaeological potential.
The potential shaft sites at Coronation Park, the Foot of Third Line, and Third Line and Lakeshore are
situated on undisturbed lands with archaeological site potential.
Based on the results of the assessment, it was recommended that if the proposed project is to impact
undisturbed lands, then a Stage 2 archaeological assessment should be conducted on lands determined to have
archaeological potential. This work will be done in accordance with the MCLs draft Standards and
Page 34
Report Ref# 250101
Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MCL 2009), in order to identify any archaeological remains that
may be present.
The complete Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment can be found in Appendix B8.
3.3.4 Cultural Heritage Assessment

As part of the overall environmental process, ASI was also commissioned to undertake a Cultural Heritage
Assessment of the study area. The purpose of this assessment was to review the cultural significance of the
area on which the plant expansion would take place, as well as at the locations of the proposed shaft sites.
The results of background historic research and a review of secondary source material, including the Ontario
Ministry of Cultures Heritage Properties Database and the Town of Oakvilles Heritage Register (January
2007 and GIS website), confirmed that no cultural heritage resources are located within the Mid-Halton
WWTP Expansion study area and directly within proposed shaft site locations. However, several resources
are located in the vicinity of the study area and proposed shaft sites. Table 3.17 below provides a summary of
identified cultural heritage resources located in the vicinity of the study area shaft site locations.
A total of seven cultural heritage resources were identified in the vicinity of the study area and shaft site
locations. Although these resources are not located within the limits of the WWTP study area and shaft site
locations, they could be subject to direct or indirect impacts based on the nature of site expansion concepts
and construction staging plans. Direct impacts could include displacement through removal, while indirect
impacts include the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements not in keeping with the setting of
cultural heritage resources. Should detailed designs or construction staging plans determine that any of the
identified cultural heritage resources will be subject to displacement, a heritage impact assessment should be
undertaken to determine the resources specific heritage significance and to recommend specific mitigation
measures.
The complete Cultural Heritage Assessment report can be found in Appendix B9.
Table 3.17 Identified Built Heritage Resources (BHR) and Cultural Heritage Resources (CHL) in the Vicinity
of the Mid-Halton WWTP Study Area and Potential Shaft Sites
Feature Location
BHR 1 2363
North
Service
Road;
Deerfield
Golf Club
Feature
Age
Type
Residence; Ca.
Known as 1850
the George
Langtree
house.
Report Ref# 250101
Description/
Comments
This
two
storey
residence features a
stucco exterior and
hipped
roof.
Its
massing, symmetrical
faade, and Italianateinspired
three-bay
layout and decorative
brackets is indicative of
a nineteenth century
construction
date.
Listed on the Town of
Oakvilles
Heritage
Register
Photograph
Potential Impacts
Located in the
vicinity of the MidHalton
WWTP
expansion study
area. Based on
proximity to the
North
Service
Road right-of-way,
potential direct and
indirect
impacts
based
on
construction
staging plans.
Page 35
Feature Location
BHR 2 2411
North
Service
Road
Feature
Type
Residence
Age
Description/
Comments
Early This
two
storey
20th
residence is of frame
century construction
and
features a clapboard
exterior. Its hipped roof
and centrally-placed,
hipped
dormer
suggests that this
structure dates to the
early twentieth century.
Identified during the
field review.
Photograph
Potential Impacts
Located in the
WWTP
expansion study
area. No expected
impacts.
BHR 3 1426
Agricultural - Ca.
Lakeshore Recreational 1860
Road
This former barn has

been re-adapted for
recreational or storage
purposes
within
Coronation Park. It
appears that all that
survives of the original
structure
are
the
fieldstone foundations
and original window
openings.
This
property is listed on the
Town of Oakvilles
heritage register.
Located in the
vicinity of the
Coronation Park
Shaft Site location.
No
expected
impacts.
BHR 4 2003
Residential N/A
Lakeshore
Road
Due to heavy tree

cover, a clear view of
the structure was not
permitted.
This
structure is listed on
the Town of Oakvilles
heritage register.
Located in the
vicinity of the
Lakeshore Road
and Third Line
No
expected
impacts.
Page 36
Report Ref# 250101
Feature Location
CHL 1 Oakville
Merton
Cemetery
Feature
Type
Burial
Ground
Age
Description/
Comments
Ca.
The Merton Cemetery
1880s dates to 1880 and was
established to serve
the Merton community,
a small hamlet located
at present day Bronte
Road and the Queen
Elizabeth
Way.
Designated under Part
IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act.
Photograph
Potential Impacts
Located in the
WWTP
expansion study
area. Based on
proximity to the
North
Service
Road right-of-way,
potential
direct
impacts based on
construction
staging plans.
CHL 2 Fourteen Waterscape N/A

Mile Creek
Identified during the

field review.
Located in the
WWTP
expansion study
area. Based on
proximity to the
proposed WWTP
expansion study
area,
potential
direct
impacts
based
on
construction
staging plans.
CHL 3 Coronation Agricultural

Park
landscape
remnant
Within Coronation Park

and east of the listed
barn, a large oak tree
is present. This tree
stands as a landscape
remnant of the former
agricultural activities
within this lot. Identified
during the field review.
Located in the
vicinity of the
Coronation Park
No
expected
impacts.
3.4 Geotechnical Information

Preliminary geotechnical comments regarding the installation of the new effluent sewer and outfall for the
Mid-Halton WWTP were provided by Thurber Engineering in the form of a technical memo, which is
included in Appendix B10. The three profile alternatives discussed in Section 4.3.6 were evaluated as was the
method of constructing the lakebed diffuser section. Published geologic maps and existing borehole data from
Report Ref# 250101
Page 37
Ministry of Transportation, Region of Halton, Town of Oakville and Thurber Engineering files were reviewed
to determine the general subsurface conditions along the proposed sewer and outfall alignment. In addition,
lakebed substrate information gathered using grab sampling and a sounding line during the fish habitat
investigations for the current study (Aquafor Beech Limited) was reviewed. It was noted that additional
investigation would be required to confirm the geotechnical conditions and provide recommendations for
detail design.
The available information indicates that tunneling for each of the three alternative profiles will be carried out
within shale bedrock. A bedrock tunnel is considered feasible using conventional tunneling methods such as
hand-mining or a tunnel boring machine (TBM) with a cutting head designed for the rock conditions at this
site.
The tunnel would generally extend through the Georgian Bay formation, with the probable exception of most
of the onshore section for the shallow shaft option, which would lie in the Queenston shale. Little difference
is anticipated between tunneling in either formation, and no advantage of one option over another is foreseen
in this regard.
Geotechnical drilling will be necessary to confirm that an adequate cover of shale exists over the top of the
pipe, particularly for the shallow option south of Rebecca Street. Lowering of the profile may be necessary in
this area.
Sewer installation by cut and cover techniques was considered for the onshore section. A 6 to 10 m deep
trench would be required. Installation by trenching is considered feasible for the subsurface conditions along
the proposed alignment, however considering the size and depth of the pipe, this method would likely be
highly disruptive, particularly in the confined right-of-way along Third Line. Additional comments in this
regard are presented below:
Temporary excavation sidewalls in the shale should generally be stable at near-vertical inclinations.
Excavation slopes in the overlying soils should be cut back at an inclination of 1H:1V or a trench box or
bracing system employed.
Excavation of the upper 1 to 3 m of shale is typically possible using a hydraulic excavator equipped with
rock teeth, supplemented by a pneumatic rock breaker (hoe-ram) to penetrate any thicker layers of hard
limestone in the shale. The shale generally becomes harder with depth, and intensive use of breakers
would be required, significantly slowing production. Blasting is unlikely to be permitted.
Noise, vibration and dust would be a significant issue during excavation of the shale.
In general, shale is not a suitable material for backfilling of trenches below roadways due to the potential
for post-construction settlement. The volume of shale requiring disposal would therefore be larger for
trenching than for tunnelling, and imported granular material would be required for backfilling purposes.
Groundwater control in trenches is likely to be an issue near the shoreline and where permeable sands are
encountered such as south of Rebecca Street. Preconstruction dewatering may be necessary depending on
the thickness of sand below the groundwater table and above the shale. The impacts of temporary
dewatering on adjacent facilities (ie., foundation settlement) will need to be evaluated and addressed.
Trenching may be more practical in the commercial areas north of Speers Road. Tunneling would still be
required under the QEW and CN Railway.
Installation of the outfall diffuser by cut and cover was also considered. Based on the existing lakebed
information, this would require excavation of a trench in the shale bedrock under a water depth of
approximately 25 m. The excavated shale could be transported and stockpiled on shore or placed on the lake
bottom adjacent to the trench, then replaced in the trench after diffuser installation. This method would result
in significantly more disturbance to the lakebed than the proposed drilled-in method, would be more
Page 38
Report Ref# 250101
susceptible to construction delays, and is expected to be substantially more costly. The practicality of
underwater rock excavation and availability of suitable excavating equipment would have to be researched
further.
4 Effluent Sewer Alternatives

Effluent from Mid-Halton is currently routed through an effluent sewer to the Oakville Southwest Wastewater
Treatment Plant (OSW WWTP) where it is combined with effluent from OSW, passed through an ultra-violet
light (UV) disinfection system and discharged into Lake Ontario through a combined outfall.
Peak flow rates from the Mid-Halton plant are predicted to exceed the capacity of the M-H to OSW effluent
sewer pipe and the combined outfall, into Lake Ontario, around 2014. Therefore increased effluent sewer
capacity is required between the Mid-Halton plant and Lake Ontario, the Receiving Body. The South Halton
Water & Wastewater Master Plan 2008 Update identified 3 alternative design concepts to address this issue.
These were:
Flow Equalization at the Mid-Halton plant and continuing use of the existing effluent sewer to Oakville
Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant (OSW-WWTP);
Twinning of the existing effluent sewer to OSW-WWTP;
Construction of a new dedicated effluent sewer and outfall;
With flow equalization, a retention tank would provide additional storage upstream of the M-H plant
sufficient to temporarily store excess raw sewage during peak flow events to limit the flow rate conveyed to
the M-H plant. This could potentially reduce the overall capacity required in the North sewage pumping
station, the sewage treatment plant, the effluent sewer and the outfall. A detailed assessment of this option
was carried out and the results are summarized in sub-section 4.1, below.
Twinning of the existing effluent sewer would maintain the pattern of directing effluent from the M-H plant
to the OSW plant with potential to continue combined disinfection and discharge into Lake Ontario. The
existing effluent sewer consists of a 1350mm tunnel below the QEW that connects with a conventional 12001350mm gravity sewer that runs beside 14-Mile Creek before being routed through side streets to enter the
OSW plant form the East.
A new dedicated effluent sewer would separate the operations of M-H and OSW plants, requiring the
introduction of disinfection facilities at M-H. Initial concepts for a route between the plant and Lake Ontario
were Third Line and Bronte Road.
The following sub-sections detail the screening process for these three alternative design concepts.
4.1 Flow Attenuation Study

The Mid-Halton WWTP is fed by two sewage pumping stations(PS): the North PS and the Third Line PS.
The North PS services existing areas in north Oakville and south Milton and is planned to service growth
areas in Oakville, north of Dundas Street, Halton Hills and south Milton. It comprises of two wet wells with
four pumps (3 duty + 1 standby), with a firm capacity of 100,000 m3/d. According to the 2008 South Halton
Water Wastewater Master Plan Update, an ultimate firm capacity of 379,380 m3/d will be required for the
build-out of the North PS catchment area by 2021. The Third Line PS services existing areas of Oakville and
is built out with a capacity of 118,620 m3/d. It is not intended to further expand the Third Line PS. Treated
effluent then flows by gravity from the WWTP through 4 km of pipes to the Oakville Southwest WWTP
where it is disinfected prior to discharge.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 39
The sewage flow attenuation alternative involves the construction of a sewage equalization storage tank
upstream of the Mid-Halton WWTP to temporarily store wet weather and peak dry weather flows that exceed
the minimum available hydraulic capacities within the treated effluent sewer and diffuser system located
downstream of the Mid-Halton WWTP, such that these existing pipes do not need to be expanded or twinned
to support the Phase IV & V expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP.
Sewage inflows exceeding the capacity of these downstream system components would be diverted into a
reinforced concrete, underground storage tank and held until inflows subside and downstream conveyance
and treatment capacity again becomes available. The captured flow would then be drained (or pumped where
elevations require this) back into the pumping station and conveyed to the Mid-Halton WWTP where it would
receive full treatment. Solids that remain in the storage tank after its liquid contents are drained and conveyed
to the WWTP would be washed from the floor of the tank and also conveyed to the plant for treatment.
Floating debris would be contained in the storage tank by underflow baffles and also conveyed to the WWTP.
The limiting factor for the conveyance of flows from the North PS in the existing downstream sewer system
occurs in the section of the treated effluent sewer between the Mid-Halton WWTP and the Southwest WWTP,
and the limiting hydraulic capacity within this existing section of sewer as determined by a gradually varied
flow analysis assuming a small amount of surcharge, is 300,000 m3/d. The projected build-out peak flow for
the Third Line PS, which also pumps flows directly into the Mid-Halton headworks, is 118,620 m3/d, so the
maximum flow that can be conveyed from the North PS through the existing downstream sanitary sewer
system during peak flow periods is 181,380 m3/d. Flows in excess of this amount (including WWF and peak
DWF) must be temporarily stored by the flow attenuation tank, if expansion or twinning of portions of the
downstream sewer system is to be avoided.
The previous study by KMK suggested that the flow attenuation tank would need to store the excess flows for
the projected build-out peak flow for the North PS, for a total duration of 4.0 hours, with a required storage
volume of 33,000 m3 to achieve this level of control. A review of recent flow records for the North PS,
during 2007 and 2008, confirmed that peak wet weather flows arriving at the North PS have been observed to
be several times (even up to 4 times) the average daily sewage flow rate, and last for periods much longer
than 4 hours. Therefore, the sizing of the flow attenuation storage tank based on the above approach would
yield a storage volume that would not control even some recently observed wet weather flow events.
Hourly flow data for the North Pumping Station for 2007 and 2008 was reviewed to determine the frequency
and duration of pumping station inflows exceeding 2, 3 and 4 times normal ADF to confirm the assumptions
used in the previous study to estimate the required volume of the attenuation storage facility, and an
evaluation of the sewage flow attenuation storage tank alternative adjacent to the North PS was conducted for
Mid-Halton WWTP design flows of 125,000 m3/d and 166,000 m3/d, for a number of different possible PS
inflow scenarios, which are described in more detail in Tech Memo #1.
Our evaluations indicated that for the Mid-Halton WWTP design flow of 125,000 m3/d, a storage volume of
87,923 m3 would be required to attenuate the flows from the North PS to the available capacity within the
existing downstream conveyance system (i.e. 181,380 m3/d), and the estimated cost to construct the facility
would be approximately $44 million. For the Mid-Halton ADF = 166,000 m3/d, a storage volume of 161,382
m3 would be required to attenuate the flows from the North PS to the available capacity within the existing
downstream conveyance system, and the estimated cost to construct the facility would be approximately $73
million.
In addition, for Mid-Halton ADF = 125,000 m3/d and 166,000 m3/d, peak dry weather flows (DWF) will
exceed the available capacity of the downstream sewer system even during dry days, requiring daily filling
and draining of the storage tank. The storage tank would therefore have to be upsized further from the
presented volumes to account for this, to be sure it could capture the WWF arriving when the tank is partially
full from peak DWF. Including this additional volume, a storage volume of 88,943 m3 would be required to
attenuate flows for Mid-Halton ADF = 125,000 m3/d, at an estimated cost of $44.5 million, and a storage
Page 40
Report Ref# 250101
volume of 172,652 m3 would be required to attenuate flows for Mid-Halton ADF = 166,000 m3/d, at an
estimated cost of $77.1 million.
Based upon our analysis, as summarized above and described in more detail in Tech Memo #1, we do not
recommend the sewage flow attenuation alternative as the preferred solution for Phase IV & V Mid-Halton
WWTP expansion. The main reasons are as follows:
The storage tank would have a large footprint and require significant lands, especially if the facility is to
be shallow to avoid or reduce the need for pumping to drain the tank into the PS, for subsequent
conveyance to the Mid-Halton WWTP.
At the Phase V ADF of 125 MLD, the storage tank would need to be filled and drained on a daily basis,
even during dry weather, in order to attenuate peak dry weather flows, and this requirement would
increase as Mid-Halton ADF approaches 166 MLD, to the point where the tank would be partially full for
large parts of the day, and therefore not completely empty when a wet weather event begins. This
continuous fill and drain operation increases the complexity of operation of the PS and collection system
in general, and also significantly increases the potential for odours.
The storage tank provides relatively short-term benefits. Even ignoring for a moment, the dry weather
operations issues discussed above, and their potential impact on the storage available during wet weather, the
facility will certainly not be able to handle North PS inflows above 181,380 m3/d, and ultimately, a new or
twinned effluent sewer will be required downstream of the Mid-Halton WWTP.
4.2 Effluent Outfall and Diffuser

Section 4.2 outlines the design process that was undertaken in developing a recommended alternative for the
effluent outfall. The existing outfall is described, and design criteria are used to evaluate various alternatives
for the new structure. The proposed design concept is presented, and the impacts and mitigation measures of
this concept are addressed.
4.2.1 Effluent Outfall

The effluent outfall represents the sewer that conveys treated wastewater from the Mid-Halton WWTP to
Lake Ontario to be discharged. The feasibility of continuing to use the existing outfall versus either of the two
alternatives for a new outfall must be evaluated. This section outlines the existing effluent outfall, describes
the design criteria and decision-making process, and proposes a recommended approach for the outfall.
4.2.1.1 Description of Existing Structure

The existing effluent outfall consists of a 72 (1829 mm) diameter buried concrete pipe. The pipe connects to
a manhole downstream of the Oakville Southwest WWTP UV Building runs, in a trench, parallel to the OSW
WWTP access road, below Lakeshore Road West and, in a dredged trench, into Lake Ontario. At a distance
of 656m into the Lake, the pipe turns through a 30-degree angle southwards and the diffuser section begins.
The pipe diameter reduces in three stages: to 48, 36 and finally 24 along the diffuser section. Eighteen,
16 (406 mm) diameter, diffuser ports discharge at a height of 48 (1200 mm) above the lakebed in a southwest direction.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 41
Figure 4.1 Joint Oakville Southwest and Mid-Halton Outfall
4.2.1.2 Design Criteria

Through engineering assessment, public consultation and consultation with agencies, the following design
criteria were identified:
1. The design average daily effluent flow for Phase V expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP is 125 MLD
(million litres per day) with a peaking factor of 3 times due to rainwater inflow and infiltration, yielding a
peak design flow of 375 MLD.
2. In the 2008 South Halton Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update, the site capacity was documented
to be 400 MLD. As such, the outfall sewer would need to be oversized to reflect the ultimate site capacity.
When assessing outfall alternatives involving construction of a new outfall (see section 4.2.1.3) an
average daily design flow of 400 MLD with a 3x peaking factor, yielding peak design flow of 1200 MLD,
was selected to optimize capital investment.
3. The Oakville Southwest WWTP generates average daily effluent flow of 45 MLD. Effluent flow peaks at
4 times the average flow, due to aging sewer pipes, yielding a peak design flow of 180 MLD.
4. Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) for assimilation of effluent by the Lake Ontario (the
receiving body) are detailed in the Assimilative Capacity Study report in Appendix B3.
5. Impact on fish habitat in Lake Ontario and in 14-Mile Creek is to be minimized.
4.2.1.3 Outfall Alternatives

Three alternative design concepts were considered for the treated effluent outfall into Lake Ontario:
Page 42
Report Ref# 250101
A. Extension of the existing outfall that carries the combined effluent from both Oakville Southwest and
Mid-Halton plants;
B. Construction of a new outfall that would continue to handle effluent from both plants;
C. Construction of a new separated outfall to carry the effluent solely from the Mid-Halton plant.
4.2.1.4 Evaluation
Evaluation of Outfall Alternatives
Draft screening criteria were presented at the first public information centre and taking into consideration the
feedback provided, the following criteria were adopted:
1. Must be compatible with existing plants;
2. Must meet the performance and capacity objectives, in this case, Provincial Water Quality Objectives
(PWQO) for assimilation of the effluent by Lake Ontario and hydraulic capacity of the outfall;
3. Must be proven technology;
4. Must be expandable to meet forecast demands;
5. Implementation schedule must match the required in-service date for the plant expansion 2013 for 100
MLD and 2017 for 125 MLD, average daily flows.
The following table, from the PIC #2 display boards, summarizes the evaluation.
Table 4.1 Screening of Outfall Alternatives
Outfall
Alternative
Concepts
Compatibility
with the
existing plant
Performance
and Capacity
Objectives
Proven
Technology
Expandability
Implementation
Schedule
A:
Existing
Combined
MEETS
CRITERIA
DOESNT MEET
CRITERIA WITH
THE CURRENT
LEVEL OF
TREATMENT AND
HYDRAULIC
CAPACITY
MEETS
CRITERIA
DOESNT
MEET
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
B:
New
Combined
DOESNT MEETS
CRITERIA SINCE
OSW PLANT
NEEDS NEW
PUMPING
MEETS
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
UNCERTAIN
IF CRITERIA
CAN BE MET
MEETS
CRITERIA
C:
New
Separated
MEETS
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
Meets screening criterion
Fails to meet screening criterion
Preferred Alternative
Alternative A did not meet the PWQOs for assimilation of the effluent, as noted in Assimilative Capacity
Study Report (in Appendix B3), nor would it be expandable to address future increases in effluent volumes.
Alternative B was not compatible with the existing Oakville Southwest plant as it would require a new
pumping station to inject effluent into the outfall under pressure. A new pumping station would increase
energy usage and would be constructed either in Coronation Park or by expanding the usable area of the OSW
plant site through felling of trees.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 43
Alternative C, a new outfall solely for Mid-Halton effluent, met all of the screening criteria and was endorsed
as the preferred alternative by the Citizens Advisory Committee.
4.2.1.5 Proposed Effluent Outfall Design Concept

The proposed design concept for the effluent outfall consists of a new 2.6m internal diameter effluent pipe
constructed from the Mid-Halton plant to a distance of 1.8 km into Lake Ontario off Coronation Park,
Oakville. Effluent flows from the Mid-Halton and OSW plants will be separated. Flow from OSW will be
routed to the existing outfall and flow from M-H routed through the new dedicated outfall. The existing M-H
to OSW effluent pipe will be retained for emergency back-up and operational flexibility.
Two alternative construction methods were evaluated for the pipe section from the M-H plant to the shoreline
of Lake Ontario:
1. Open-cut trench construction from street level;
2. Bored tunnel construction using a tunnel boring machine (TBM).
Evaluation of the cost of construction, potential social impacts on road traffic and environmental impacts of
dust and vibration lead to the selection of a bored tunnel as the preferred construction method.
For the pipe section in Lake Ontario, bored tunnel and dredged trench construction methods were evaluated.
The dredged trench alternative could have significant potential impact on fish habitat; therefore bored tunnel
was selected as the preferred construction method.
The proposed design concept is for the 2.6m diameter pipe to be formed within a 3.2m diameter tunnel bored
in the Queenston and/or Georgian Bay shale geological layers.
4.2.1.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

It is recommended that a tunnelling approach be used for the construction of the effluent sewer. As such, it is
anticipated that there will be minimal impact to the surrounding social, natural, and cultural environment.
4.2.2 Diffuser
A diffuser will be constructed at the end of the effluent outfall in order to ensure adequate mixing of effluent
from the Mid-Halton WWTP into the ambient lake water. A diffuser aids in the process of effluent dilution so
that Provincial Water Quality Objectives can be met, and to minimize the impact of the effluent on the lake
environment. This section presents the design criteria for the diffuser, and outlines the proposed concept for
the new diffuser design. The impacts and mitigation measures proposed for this design concept are also
addressed.

Criteria
The design criteria for the diffuser are:
1. At commissioning, the minimum pipe velocity at average daily flow must be greater than or equal to
0.2 m/s;
2. Peak average daily design flow of 400 MLD and peak flow of 1200 MLD;
3. Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) for assimilation of effluent into Lake Ontario (the
receiving body) are detailed in the Assimilative Capacity Study report in Appendix B3;
4. Minimize impact on fish habitat in Lake Ontario;
Page 44
Report Ref# 250101
4.2.2.2 Proposed Diffuser Design Concept

As a component of the assimilative capacity study, a range of diffuser configurations were assessed to identify
the optimum configuration for effluent mixing in to the receiving body (Lake Ontario). A configuration
consisting of 9 # 450 mm diameter risers each with twin 400 mm diameter diffuser ports positioned 1.2 m
above the lake bed, angled at 60 degrees above the bed and at 22.5 degrees each side of the outfall direction,
was found to produce optimum mixing over a range of current conditions for the Phase V peak flow of 375
MLD. As a result of further investigation of the hydraulic performance at potential future peak flows, up to
1200 MLD, the number of risers was increased to 27. The recommended design is for the diffuser risers to
connect directly to the 2,600mm diameter effluent sewer, below the lake bed. If this proves impossible, due
to geotechnical conditions, the alternative design would involve a fabricated metal diffuser pipe buried in a
dredged trench on the lakebed. In this case further consultation with Department of Fisheries and Oceans and
Conservation Halton would be undertaken to minimize impact on the environment. The configuration of the
proposed design is shown in the Figure 4.2 below:
Figure 4.2 Proposed Outfall & Diffuser Detail
4.2.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The 1.8 km outfall length and the design of the diffuser array result in impacts on lake water quality that are
well within the provincial water quality objectives, as detailed in the Assimilative Capacity Report in
Appendix B3.
Installation of the diffuser array in the lake bed has potential to impact fish habitat, however, the proposed
construction method will cause minor impacts to small locations. This diffuser construction technique was
discussed with experienced tunnelling and marine contractors, and was also recently successfully utilized for
the Region of Peel effluent sewer tunnel construction for the Clarkson Sewage Treatment Plant. The proposed
Report Ref# 250101
Page 45
construction method involves driving twenty seven number 450mm diameter shafts into the lake bed using a
drilling barge, installing the metal diffuser assemblies and then intercepting the shafts during tunnel
construction to connect them to the outfall pipe. The diffuser shafts and diffuser ports would then be grouted
into the bored shafts and pressure tested prior to advancing the tunnel through the vertical shaft alignments.
The rock fragments from the drilling operation are expected to dissipate over a wide area during the drilling
operation resulting in minor impacts on fish habitat. With tunnelled construction, the total lakebed area
affected by the diffuser will be approximately 5.4 m2 which is not sufficiently significant to require formal
fish habitat compensation. More detail on the fish habitat assessment can be found in Section 3.3.2.
4.3 Effluent Sewer Routing

This section addresses the various routing alternatives for conveying effluent from the Mid-Halton WWTP to
Lake Ontario. The existing effluent sewer route is described, and the decision-making process for arriving at a
proposed route presented. Analysis is also performed on two approaches to tunnel construction. Impacts and
mitigation measures for the proposed route are addressed.
4.3.1 Existing Effluent Discharge Route

Effluent from Mid-Halton is currently conveyed through a gravity sewer that runs along the 14-Mile Creek
valley to Warminster Drive, then along Woodside Drive into the NW boundary of the Oakville SW Plant.
Pipes are of reinforced concrete with diameters a mix of 1,200 mm and 1,350 mm along the length of the
sewer. At OSW, the effluent is routed through a UV disinfection building, where it mixes with effluent from
the OSW plant and is discharged into Lake Ontario through a common outfall and diffusers. Figure 4.3 below
depicts the existing effluent sewer route.
Figure 4.3 Existing Effluent Sewer Route
Page 46
Report Ref# 250101
4.3.2 Design Criteria

Through engineering assessment, public consultation and consultation with agencies, the following design
criteria were identified:
1. The design average daily effluent flow for Phase V expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP is 125 MLD
(million litres per day) with a peaking factor of 3 times due to rainwater inflow and infiltration, yielding a
peak design flow of 375 MLD.
2. In the 2008 South Halton Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update, the site capacity was documented
to be 400 MLD. As such, the outfall sewer would need to be oversized to reflect the ultimate site capacity.
When assessing outfall alternatives involving construction of a new outfall (see section 4.2.1.3) an
average daily design flow of 400 MLD with a 3x peaking factor, yielding peak design flow of 1200 MLD,
was selected to optimize capital investment.
3. The Oakville Southwest WWTP generates average daily effluent flow of 45 MLD. Effluent flow peaks at
4 times the average flow, due to aging sewer pipes, yielding a peak design flow of 180 MLD.
4. A minimum flow velocity in the effluent pipe of 0.2 m/s should be maintained at low flows.
5. The route must utilize publicly owned land where possible and minimize purchase or easement
requirements on non-publicly owned land.
6. For construction purposes, the maximum design gradient for tunnelling is 0.7%, with a minimum gradient
of 0.1% and a maximum drive length, between construction shafts, of 3,000m. Target construction shaft
site area for sites from which the tunnel will be driven is 2,000 m2 and for sites from which the tunnelling
machine will be extracted 900 m2.
7. Disruption to traffic along roads should be minimized.
8. Impact on fish habitat in Lake Ontario and in 14-Mile Creek is to be minimized.
4.3.3 Routing Alternatives (long and short list)

The following Figure 4.4 presents the initial long-list of potential routes for a new effluent sewer. Route
Alternative D is based on the route of the existing effluent sewer but bypassing the OSW plant. Route
alternatives B, C & D all share a common outfall location. Routes A, B & C all follow the South Service Rd,
Bronte Station Approach Rd, Speers Rd and Third Line before splitting into alternative alignments at Rebecca
Street or Lakeshore Road W. Routes E & F utilize the linear park from Bronte Rd to Nixon Street because
there are no public owned routes South from Speers Road. Routes E & F were included despite there
considerably longer length and therefore higher expected cost, in case there were significant geological or
other issues that screened out routes A through D. All alternatives for the outfall are designed to position the
diffusers outside the Water Purification Plant 2-hour intake protection zones (IPZ2s) for Burloak and Oakville
WPPs.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 47
Figure 4.4 Long-list of Effluent Sewer Routing Alternatives
Through the screening process described in section 4.3.5, below, the long-list was reduced to the following
short-list of alternative design concepts as depicted in Figure 4.5 below:
Page 48
Report Ref# 250101
Figure 4.5 Short-list of Effluent Sewer Routing Alternatives
Route C was not favoured because short radius bends in the local road network would present tunnelling
challenges and open cut trenching in the narrow road reserve would severely impact the local environment.
However, it was carried forward as a backup given the high degree of commonality between Routes A & B.
After a detailed evaluation of the routes and their associated potential construction shaft sites, Route B, shown
in Figure 4.6 below, was selected as the Recommended Route.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 49
Figure 4.6 Recommended Effluent Sewer Route
4.3.4 OpenOpen-trench vs. Tunnelling

All of the short-list route alternatives could be constructed using wither open-cut trenching and bored
tunnelling construction methods. The following sub-sections outline these two methods.
Open Trench method
The open-cut method, depicted in Figure 4.7 below, would consist of the following steps:
1) One lane of a road section is shut down with temporary signs and / or traffic signals as required;
2) A trench is excavated from the surface through publicly owned road reserves or negotiated easements and
the trench walls are supported with temporary supports either sheet piles or a drag box depending on the
depth;
3) Pipe bedding is placed in the trench to support the pipe;
4) Precast concrete pipes are laid in pipe bedding;
5) The pipe is surrounded by protective pipe bedding;
6) The remaining trench is backfilled with crushed rock and the fill is compacted to avoid settlement;
7) Permanent access holes are constructed where the pipe direction changes;
8) The ground surface is restored to previous its condition.
Page 50
Report Ref# 250101
Figure 4.7 Open-cut Trenching Method
The records of other utilities that share the road reserve, including drinking water pipes, sanitary collections
sewers, storm drains, natural gas distribution, electricity distribution and telecommunication services, were
reviewed to identify services that would require accommodation during construction. Services identified
include: a 750mm water main in Speers Road, a 500mm water main crossing Third Line at Rebecca Road, a
600mm water main in Third Line between Speers and Rebecca, 600mm and 750mm sewer mains in
Lakeshore Road West, a high pressure gas distribution main in Third Line at Speers Road, new 900mm storm
drain in Third Line between Rebecca and Lakeshore Road.
This method of construction would not be practical for the sections below the QEW and CN rail tracks
(yellow shading below) because of continuous use, however would be applicable to the sections from Speers
Road to Coronation Park (blue shading below).
Figure 4.8 Typical Effluent Sewer Profile Using Open-Cut Trench Construction Method
Tunnelling method
The tunnelling method would consist of the following steps:
1) Establish two to three construction shaft sites (example shown in Figure 4.9 below), with 8 ft. high
hoardings, temporary offices, crane, air supply and dewatering equipment;
2) Excavate a 10m diameter construction shaft using backhoe (with hoe-ram once in unweathered shale);
3) Assemble a tunnel boring machine (TBM) in the shaft;
Report Ref# 250101
Page 51
4) Bore the 3.2m diameter tunnel, removing spoil through the construction shaft to trucks;
5) Install a nominal 0.3m concrete lining in the tunnel to form the 2,600mm diameter pipe;
6) Extract the TBM from the upstream shaft;
7) Backfill, compact and redress the surface of the shafts, constructing permanent access shafts at MidHalton and Rebecca Road.
Figure 4.9 Example of Construction of a Shaft
Evaluation
The two construction methods were assessed against the following criteria: socio-economic impact, natural
environment impact, relative costs, and ability to meet the required 2-year construction schedule.
Comments were received at the Public Information Centres (PIC) emphasizing the importance of these
criteria in selection and stating a preference for tunnelled construction. One PIC comment received, however,
specifically favoured open trench construction. As a result, a detailed review was undertaken by the project
team.
As detailed in the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment report (see Appendix B5), the open-cut trench method
was assessed as producing significantly more impact than the tunnelling option. Specifically, the trenching
operation would have a major impact on pedestrian, cycle and vehicular traffic on all three short-listed route
alternatives. The impacts would be sustained over the entire project schedule as the open section of trench
Page 52
Report Ref# 250101
moved along the route. In contrast, impacts resulting from the tunnelling method are focused on the three
construction shaft sites and traffic impacts were assessed as minor at all sites.
Noise, dust, vibration and odour impacts on local communities along the routes were also considered. The
investigation showed that the required cover above the crown of the proposed sewer (dictated by MTO and
CN Railway); and the need to maintain clearances below existing services along the proposed alignment
would result in a trench depth of approximate 6 10 m and that this will involve excavation through
overburden, weathered shale and un-weathered shale for the open cut method. Excavation of the unweathered shale would require intensive use of hoe-ram (a pneumatic or hydraulic rock breaker), as blasting
will not be permitted in this urban setting. The potential impacts to residents and businesses along the routes
were assessed as moderate for the duration of construction adjacent to their locations. For the tunnelled
method, impacts would be focused on three shaft sites and there would be no perceptible impacts along the
tunnelling routes. The level of dust, vibration and odour impacts were assessed as minor for all sites. Noise
impact will be higher during initial excavation of the construction shafts for a period of two to six months.
The team determined that the overall impacts of the open cut method were significantly greater and affected
more people, than the tunnelling method.
The construction costs for the open cut are estimated to be 80 90 % of the cost of the tunnelling alternative,
not including some foreseeable further costs. Further costs would be incurred for importing backfill for the
trench, as the shale is not suitable for backfill below roadways due to the potential for post-construction
settlement; for de-watering of the section adjacent to the lake; for accommodating works to existing services;
for provision of temporary alternative services to customer; and for traffic management during the entire
construction period.
In summary, an open cut construction approach would be significantly more disruptive than tunnelling, with
little economic benefit to the regional tax payer. For this reason, the open-cut construction method was
omitted from further consideration.
4.3.5 Evaluation of Routing Alternatives

Alternatives
Evaluation of the route alternatives proceeded in two stages:
1) Screening with must-meet criteria that any alternative must meet to pass on to the detailed evaluation;
2) Detailed evaluation of a short-list of alternatives using a list of approximately 25 detailed criteria;
The following Must-meet evaluation criteria were presented at Public Information Centre #1 and used to
evaluate the long-lost of route alternatives.
Must-meet criteria; each alternative must meet all screening criteria:
Compatibility with the existing plant;
Performance and Capacity Objectives. Must satisfy, as a minimum, the hydraulic and effluent quality
requirements;
Proven Technology. Must have been used for a minimum of 3-years at similar sized facility as the
proposed Phase IV and V capacities;
Expandability. Can be implemented within the existing site allowing for future planned expansion;
Implementation Schedule. Can be implemented within the timing required for Phase IV and Phase V
plant expansions.
The results of the screening are summarized in Table 4.2 below:
Report Ref# 250101
Page 53
Table 4.2 Screening Criteria
Alternative D was eliminated because of:

a. Unacceptable environmental impacts associated with trenching through the 14-Mile Creek valley or
establishing a tunnelling shaft site in or adjacent to the valley.
b. The significant construction risks involved in tunnelling through a glacially deepened and then in-filled
valley.
Alternative E was eliminated because of:
a. The extended length of the route would result in an extended construction schedule and fail to meet the
minimum hydraulic performance criterion.
b. The significant environmental impacts of construction in the dense urban setting of Bronte village.
Alternative F was eliminated because of:
a. The extended length of the route would result in an extended construction schedule and fail to meet the
minimum hydraulic performance criterion.
Alternatives A & B were carried forward as the short-list for detailed evaluation. Because of the significant
commonality of these two routes, Alternative C was also carried forward as a backup alternative.
The following detailed evaluation criteria were presented at PIC #1:
Social Environmental Criteria
Page 54
Odour not increase odours
Visual improve the visual character of the area
Noise and vibration not increase noise during operation
Dust control dust during the construction period

Report Ref# 250101
Traffic minimize traffic impacts during the construction period
Land Uses construction within the property boundary of existing plant
Recreation Features not impact any recreational uses around the plant
Archaeology protect any archaeologically significant findings on the site
Health and safety not increase risk/liability to community health and safety
Natural Environment Criteria
Meet the Provincial Water Quality Objectives
Impacts on the Water Intake Protection Zones (IPZ)
Impacts on air quality
Impacts on terrestrial system
Impacts on groundwater resources
Technical Criteria
Pumping station(s)/Forcemains/Gravity Sewers
Hydraulic limitations
Operability
Constructability
Geotechnical suitability
Reliability
Flexibility
Chemical Usage
Energy Usage
Economic Criteria
Capital cost
Operational & Maintenance costs
Life-cycle costs
The following feedback was received:
Social and Environmental Criteria should be higher than other criteria;
Avoid natural area in brook valley (assumed to be 14-Mile Creek). A more direct route is preferred;
Preference for tunnelling;
Minimum disruption to parks and public areas;
No impact to lake water quality; and
Safety should be considered.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 55
A detailed evaluation of the two potential construction methods, together with this input resulted in selection
of tunnelling as the preferred construction method. As there are no material differences between route
alternatives A & B from a tunnel construction perspective, the detailed evaluation of the routes switched to an
evaluation of the construction shaft sites see section 4.4 below.
4.3.6 Proposed Effluent Sewer

Sewer Route
Based on the evaluation of the construction shaft sites, see section 4.4, Route Alternative A was chosen as the
preferred alternative. The preferred route and three candidate profiles are illustrated in Figure 4.10 below. It
is noted that the three suggested profiles are preliminary alternatives, which may be refined in subsequent
stages of the project.
Figure 4.10 Preferred Effluent Sewer Alignment, Shaft Sites and Alternative Profiles
Negotiations with Metrolinx for access to the Bronte Station shaft site have not been concluded and all three
candidate tunnel profiles run well below the elevation of the Third Line / CN rail tracks underpass, therefore,
an alternative route from Third Line @ Speers Road to the Mid-Halton plant site has been introduced.
Discussions with Halton Region Conservation Authority indicate that this route would be acceptable, subject
to detailed hydro-geological evaluation of the relationship between the creek and the tunnel. The exact route
will be determined during detailed design.
4.3.7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

All impacts from the construction of the tunnel and future operations will occur at the shaft sites and are
detailed, with proposed mitigation measures in section 4.4.5, below.
Page 56
Report Ref# 250101
4.4 Shaft Sites

Based solely on the evaluation of tunnel routes, there were no clear differentiating factors between the shortlisted effluent sewer route alternatives (Alt. A & Alt. B in section 4.3.4), therefore a more focused study of
the shaft sites associated with each route and their potential impacts was conducted. This section details this
study.

There are three functional types of shaft site, each with different design criteria:
TBM Entry shaft; requires a site area of 2,000 m2 for: a 10 m diameter shaft for assembling the TBM,
temporary offices, site stores, changing room, dewatering plant, air supply plant and temporary storage of
excavated material, ;
Midway production shaft; requires and area of 1,900 m2 for: a 5 m diameter shaft, temporary offices,
site stores, changing room, dewatering plant, air supply plant and temporary storage of excavated
material;
TBM Exit shaft; requires a site area of 700 m2 for: a 10 m diameter shaft for disassembly of the TBM,
small temporary office and dewatering plant;
All site types share the following common design criteria:
Security hoarding typically 8 ft. high solid board hoarding;
Car / light truck parking for 10 vehicles;
Level ground or minimal slope;
Road access for tractor-trailer style trucks and space within the site boundary to load / unload a truck;
Access to electric and water services;
4.4.2 Shaft Site Alternatives (Plant site, midway, and shoreline)

Construction shaft sites will be required at three locations:
1. Shoreline Shaft Site: This site would be adjacent to the Lake Ontario Shoreline (within 1,000m of the
shoreline) and would be functional type TBM Entry or TBM Exit site depending on the selected tunnel
profile (see section 4.3.6 for profiles);
2. Mid-way Shaft Site: This site would be approximately mid-way between the shoreline and the MidHalton plant site and would be functional type Midway Production Site;
3. Mid-Halton Plant Shaft Site: This site would be within the Mid-Halton plant boundary and would be
either functional type TBM Entry or TBM Exit site depending on the selected tunnel profile (see section
4.3.6 for profiles);
Seven potential shaft site locations, to serve route alternative A, B & C, were identified by map and field
inspection and are identified in Figure 4.5 under Section 4.3.3 above.
The following seven figures detail the boundaries of each potential shaft site and its road access:
Report Ref# 250101
Page 57
Page 58
Report Ref# 250101
Report Ref# 250101
Page 59
Page 60
Report Ref# 250101
It is also noted that a maintenance access point may be required to allow for future inspection. As such, a
shaft would be provided of sufficient diameter for either remote camera or personnel entry into the tunnel.
This maintenance access point could be located in the vicinity of Third Line and Rebecca Street.
4.4.3 Evaluation of Shaft Site Alternatives

Each site was evaluated using the detailed evaluation criteria identified in section 4.3.5, above. Details of the
socio-economic, cultural heritage and natural environment impacts can be found the relevant specialist reports
attached as appendices. A summary of the evaluation is provided in Table 4.3 below:
Report Ref# 250101
Page 61
Table 4.3 Summary of Shaft Site Evaluation
Table Legend:
Page 62
Minor impact
Moderate impact
Major impact
Report Ref# 250101
4.4.4 Proposed Shaft Sites (Coronation

(Coronation Park, Bronte Station, MidMid-Halton Site, and
Maintenance Access Point)
Point)
The proposed shaft sites are
Shoreline site:
Coronation Park
Midway site:
Speers Rd South of Bronte Station
Mid-Halton site:
West end of plant site
Maintenance access point: To allow for future inspection, it is recommended that a shaft be provided of
sufficient diameter for either remote camera or personnel entry into the tunnel in the vicinity of Third Line
and Rebecca Street. The precise location of this access point, either within the road allowance or in an
easement adjacent to the road allowance, will be determined during preliminary design.
Although there is no regulatory requirement for diver access into the marine section of the effluent sewer, the
Region may wish to provide for such a bulkhead and shaft into the effluent sewer tunnel in the vicinity of the
diffuser section for future diver access for inspection/maintenance purposes. The possible provision of this
marine access point will be further considered during preliminary design.

Coronation Park Shaft Site
The Coronation Park shaft site has the greatest potential impacts. It is shown in context of the surrounding
park and residential settlement below in Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.11 Coronation Park Shaft Site in Context
The boundaries of the site are located 75m from three homes. During shaft construction, these properties will
experience increased noise, dust and vibration impacts. The site will occupy a small part of the well-used
park for a period of 18 24 months and unrestricted use would impact full use of the park, therefore specific
mitigation measures are proposed to maintain public access.
Mitigation measures agreed for this site are:
Report Ref# 250101
Page 63
1. Parking lot and waterfront trail will be maintained for public use during entire construction period;
2. Construction trades will not be allowed to occupy waterfront trail or parking lot. Possible use of the
Oakville Southwest WWTP parking lot will be investigated, otherwise contractor will be made
responsible for finding parking off-site and shuttling construction workers to the shaft site;
3. No visible infrastructure will be left at grade following construction;
4. Park will be restored and possibly enhanced as compensation for construction access (will be investigated
and discussed with Town of Oakville during detailed design). Improved habitat conditions for migratory
birds passing through Coronation Park will also be discussed with Town of Oakville and Conservation
Halton at this time;
5. Solid site hoarding will be provided to minimize visual intrusion and noise impact;
Speers Rd South of Bronte Station Shaft Site

This site will be located in land acquired by Metrolinx to construct a new parking lot for the Bronte GO
Transit Station. The site is 220m from the nearest residential property and is adjacent to fifteen commercial
and industrial developments. Noise and dust impacts are anticipated to be moderate during shaft construction
with moderate impact in the mainly commercial traffic flows on Speers Road for the whole duration of site
operations (9 12 months).
Proposed mitigations measures:
1. Traffic control for truck access to Speers Road;
2. Spoil storage on site to avoid peak traffic flows;
Solid hoarding to minimize visual intrusion and noise impact;
Mid-Halton Plant Shaft Site

This site will be located within the existing Region lands at Mid-Halton. The site is 100m from a single
residential property and 150m from two industrial developments across the QEW. Noise and dust impacts are
anticipated to be minor during shaft construction with minor impact in traffic flows on Speers Road on North
Service Road West for the whole duration of site operations (9 12 months).
Proposed mitigations measures:
1. Spoil storage on site to avoid peak traffic flows;
2. Solid hoarding to minimize visual intrusion and noise impact;
5 Plant Alternatives
Alternatives
This section presents a review of the alternative technologies and design concepts for sewage processes at the
Mid-Halton WWTP to achieve the Phase IV and V expansions. The following summarizes the design flow
basis for the Phase IV and V expansions:
Page 64
Report Ref# 250101
Table 5.1 Expanded WWTP Flows

WWTP Capacity
WWTP Capacity
Peak Day
WWTP Capacity
75 ML/day
150 ML/day
225 ML/day
125 ML/day
250 ML/day
438 ML/day
Average Day
Existing Plant
Peak Instantaneous
(Phase III Expansion)

Phase IV & V Expansion
(130 ML/day with (260 ML/day with (455 ML/day with

sidestream flows)
sidestream flows)
sidestream flows)
It is noteworthy that the peak instantaneous flow factor for the planned Phase IV and V plant expansions is
proposed to be 3.5. This is increased from a peak flow factor of 3.0 from the previous Phase III Design, and
is based on a review of existing plant flow data (refer to Section 3 of this report).
Based on the revised peaking factors, the design basis for the various unit processes for the Phase IV and V
expansions are outlined described below.
Table 5.2 Design Flow Peak Factors for the Mid-Halton WWTP Existing Unit Processes
Process
Raw Sewage
Pumping
Screening
Grit Removal
Primary
Clarifiers
Aeration Tanks
Secondary
Clarifiers
UV Disinfection
Design Process
Capacity
Design
Hydraulic
Capacity
Existing Phase III Plant Expansion
Design Process
Capacity
Design
Hydraulic
Capacity
Proposed Phase IV and V
Plant Expansions
N/A
3.5
N/A
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
2.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.5
N/A
It is proposed that all conduits, pipes, channels and pumping stations would be designed for a peak hydraulic
using a 3.5 peaking factor to ensure there is no potential risk of a sewage overflow at the plant.
For each unit process, a description of the additional process capacity requirements and process needs is
provided. Following this description, a review of alternatives to meet future needs is outlined, with a
description of the proposed design concept for the Phase IV / V expansion. A discussion of potential impacts
and proposed mitigation measures for each preferred design concept is also provided to ensure the proposed
design has minimal impact to the public and environment.
In general, the design approach is to consider the Phase IV and Phase V flow requirements as one consolidated
plant expansion, with Phases IV and V combined. This approach is generally desired, as the design and
construction cycle for each phase is approximately 5 years, and so consolidating construction into one Phase
Report Ref# 250101
Page 65
IV/V contract reduces the duration of construction activities at the Mid-Halton WWTP, which is desirable to
reduce impacts to the public.
In order to expand the capacity of the Mid-Halton WWTP for Phase IV and V flows (125 ML/day nominal
average capacity), the following processes will need to be expanded:
Pumping Capacity at the existing North Pumping Station
Headworks (screening and grit removal)
Primary Treatment (clarifiers, sludge and scum pumping)
Secondary Treatment Capacity (aeration tanks, blowers, secondary clarifiers, RAS and WAS pumping)
New Effluent Disinfection Facility
Biosolids Treatment and Dewatering (new anaerobic digester, rotary drum thickener and centrifuge)
Effluent Sewer and Outfall
There is the potential that there may be re-evaluations and adjustments of the above peaking factors during the
subsequent detailed design process. However none of these adjustments would significantly affect the initial
design concepts proposed in this Environmental Study Report.
5.1 North Pumping Station

The following section presents the evaluation of expansion alternatives for the North Pumping Station.
5.1.1 Existing Process Description

The Mid Halton WWTP has two raw sewage pumping stations. The North Pumping Station is located
towards the north end of the plant site, while the Third Line Pumping Station is located east of the plant, just
off site.
The Third Line Pumping Station is equipped with four pumps (three duty, one standby), providing a firm
capacity of 131 ML/day. The North Pumping Station is equipped with four pumps (four @ 378 L/s). It
therefore has a firm capacity of 100 ML/day.
Mid-Halton WWTPs current total firm pumping capacity (with one pump out of service at each pumping
station) is 263 ML/day, which is below the required peak flow of 438 ML/day for Phase V expansion.
All capacity increases to the Mid-Halton WWTP are from service areas connected to the North Pumping
Station. No flow increases to the Third Line Pumping Station are planned. The required capacity for the
expansion of the North Pumping Station is calculated as follows. Out of the 438 ML/day peak flow to MidHalton, 307 ML/day peak flow would be needed at the North Sewage Pumping Station. The design criteria
for the expansion as well as an evaluation of the alternatives are given below.
Page 66
Report Ref# 250101

Table 5.3 Design Criteria for North Pumping Station
Parameter
ML/day
L/s
Existing Firm Capacity
100
1,134
Expanded Firm Capacity Phase IV
219
2,535
Expanded Firm Capacity Phase V
307
3,553
5.1.3 Expansion Alternatives

The increased peak flow would be addressed by expanding the existing North Pumping Station (nominally
from 196 ML/day to 307 ML/day).
Two alternatives have been considered for the expansion of the North Pumping Station:
Alternative 1: Upgrade Pumping Station in Two Stages (nominally for Phase IV in stage 1, then for Phase
V in stage 2)
Alternative 2, Expand SPS immediately for Phase V
These Alternatives are depicted in Figure 5.1.

Alternative 1 - Upgrade Pumping Station in Two Stages
This alternative considers a staged approach.
In Stage 1 the existing pumps would be upgraded to provide additional capacity suitable for Phase IV
expansion. In addition a forcemain would be constructed as needed at this time.
This approach delays the construction of a new SPS for Phase V flows, as only equipment is upsized.
In Stage 2, a new wet well would be built adjacent to the existing wet well, and additional pumps would be
added to fulfill the required capacity for Phase V expansion. An additional forcemain would be installed as
required for connection to the plant headworks to accommodate the increased flow. Expansion of standby
power capacity would also be required.
Alternative 2, Expand SPS immediately for Phase V
The sewage pumping station expansion for Phase V flows is constructed immediately. This alternative
comprises the addition new pumps to fulfill the required capacity for Phase V expansion, a new wet well onto
the existing wet well, and the addition of new forcemains as needed, upgraded standby power, and new Odour
Control Units.
5.1.4 Evaluation of Expansion Alternatives

A comprehensive evaluation matrix showing an impact assessment of all of the criteria for each expansion
alternative is included in Appendix B11.
Alternative 1: Staged Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) expansion
A summary of advantages and disadvantages of this option are provided below:
Report Ref# 250101
Page 67
Advantages
Staged approach allows for lower Initial Cost to
Delay Cost of Building new SPS
Disadvantages
Can Handle only Phase IV flows
Requires 2 forcemain contracts
Temporary pumps likely required
Greater risk of spill (temp pumps reqd)
Must deliver 2nd contract (after plant
expansion for new SPS)
Alternative 2: Expand Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) immediately for Phase V

A summary of advantages and disadvantages of this option is provided below:
Advantages
Staging simplified as new SPS can be built at the same
time as the Phase V plant expansion
Forcemains can be constructed as part of one contract
Some reduced risk of overflow to effluent sewer
Improved constructability, compared to Alternative 1
Disadvantages
High initial cost (but overall cost
is the same)
5.1.5 Proposed Design Concept

Based on the above, the proposed design concept is to implement Alternative 2 and expand the North Sewage
Pumping Station for Phase V flows. This approach simplifies contracting and the overall duration of
construction, as the following items can be constructed as part of one contract:
An expansion of the existing wet well structure, with a third wet well cell
Provide additional pump capacity to meet demand for Phase V expansion
The addition of one or two forcemains which connect to the headworks inlet structure. Multiple
forcemains provides redundancy for a critical piece of infrastructure and reduces the risk of a sewage
overflow.
Expansion of the building to accommodate an expanded Motor Control Centre and Standby Power
The addition of an odour control system
5.1.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures (odour control)

The construction of the expansion of the North Pumping Station is relatively straight forward, with no
significant impacts to the public or the environment.
During operation, the additional odour impacts from the expanded North Sewage Pumping Station are
anticipated to be relatively insignificant. There have been no odour complaints in the area which have been
specifically linked to operations at the Mid Halton WWTP. However, to ensure that there is no overall
additional odour impact in this work area, an odour control facility could be constructed at the North Pumping
Station for controlling odours that could be potentially generated here. The final technology selection for the
odour control system would be either a biological filter, or a dry media (activated carbon type) filter.
Page 68
Report Ref# 250101
5.2 Preliminary Treatment / Screening

The existing headworks facility (also known as the inlet works facility) contains grit and screenings
removal equipment in a building, and grit removal tanks as part of the preliminary treatment process.
Sewage screening and the removal of grit, helps protect downstream treatment equipment in the wastewater
treatment plant. Figure 5.1 below depicts the preliminary treatment process.
Figure 5.1 Preliminary Treatment Process
Screens
Grit Tanks
Pre-treated
Sewage
To Primary
Screenings and
Grit
Disposal

Raw Sewage Influent Chamber
Three forcemains (two from Third Line Pumping Station and one from the North Sewage Pumping Station)
convey sewage to an aerated influent chamber at the headworks facility. Sewage from the aerated influent
chamber flows through a channel into the screen building. Two blowers (one duty and one standby) supply air
to the influent chamber, and also serve to aerate channels throughout the plant.
Screens
The headworks building contains two automatic coarse screens and one emergency bypass screen. The bar
screens can nominally handle an instantaneous peak flow of 225 ML/day. A third manual screen is available
to allow maintenance on the automatic screens or as an emergency bypass. Screenings are mechanically
raked and removed from the screen, then washed, compacted and conveyed to a waste bin (with grit).
Screenings / grit bins are periodically hauled off-site and emptied at a landfill.
The headworks building contains a 6,000 cfm carbon adsorption unit which reduces odours within covered
channels within the screening area of this building.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 69

Table 5.4 Design Criteria for Screening System (for Phase V design)
Parameter
Value (ML/day)
Existing Hydraulic Design Flow (for 2 screens)
225
Total Required Hydraulic Design
438
(Peak Instantaneous) Flow using 3.5 factor

Total Required Hydraulic Design (Peak Instantaneous) based on
total Upstream Pumping Capacity
458
Additional Required Screen Capacity (nominal)
225
Therefore, there is a need to double the screening capacity.

Two alternatives for screening are provided for consideration:
Alternative 1 Twin existing screen system in an expanded headworks building
This alternative will double the existing screen system. The headworks building would be expanded to house
two (2) new screens, and a new manual bar screen. Included would be screenings washing systems and
conveyors.
Alternative 2 - Twin existing screens and upgrade to fine screens in an expanded headworks building
This option is the same as Alternative #1 except the 2 existing screens would be replaced with fine screens
and the 2 new screens would also be fine screens.
To control odour issues for either option, the existing odour collection and treatment units would be expanded
as required.

Alternative 1: Twin existing screen system in an expanded headworks building
Advantages
Somewhat lower upgrade cost
Disadvantages
Less screening captured increasing
potential for sludge pumps to plug
Operators familiar with system

Coarse screens simple to operate, with less potential
for plugging and failure
Less odours produced from this system
Page 70
Report Ref# 250101
Alternative 2: Twin existing screen system and upgrade to fine screens in an expanded headworks
building
Advantages
Screens removal efficiency is higher to protect
downstream equipment
Disadvantages
Higher capital cost
More potential odours
More potential plugging
Operations not familiar with this
5.2.5 Proposed Screening Design Concept

Based on the above, the proposed screening design concept is Alternative 1, which includes an expansion of
the headworks building to house two (2) new screens, and a new manual bar screen. Included with this
design concept would be screenings washing systems, conveyor systems, and odour collection and treatment
units.

Measures (odour control)
The construction of the expansion of the Headworks building is relatively straight forward. No significant
impacts to the public or the environment are anticipated.
During operation, the additional odour impacts from the expanded Headworks building are anticipated to be
relatively insignificant. However, to ensure that there is no overall additional impact in this work area, the
existing odour control system would be expanded if required.
5.3 Grit Removal

The following section presents the evaluation of expansion alternatives for the grit removal process at the
Mid-Halton WWTP.

Screened sewage enters an aerated channel and flows to two detritor tanks for removal of grit. The tanks are
12.2m square grit tanks, with a total surface area of 296 m2, fitted with a circular grit scraper mechanism.
Settled grit is collected in a centre hopper, and transferred to a hydrocyclone grit classifier and screw
conveyor for dewatering.
Grit is stored in a bin (with screenings) located within the headworks building, and the bin contents are
periodically hauled off site for landfill disposal.

Design Criteria for the grit removal process for the expanded plant are provided in Table 5.5.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 71
Table 5.5 Design Criteria for Grit Removal (for Phase V design)
Parameter
Value (ML/day)
Existing Hydraulic Design Flow (combined 2 tanks)
225
Existing Process Design Flow (combined 2 tanks)
187.5
Total Required Process Design Flow (3 X peak factor)
375
Additional Required Grit Removal Capacity (nominal)
187.5

Grit Removal Expansion Alternatives are:
Alternative 1: Twin Existing Facility and Add Two Detritor Tanks

- An expansion of the existing headworks building is required, and two detritor tanks would be provided
(same size as existing)
Alternative 2: New Grit Facility Using Vortex Technology

- A new headworks facility would be required.
5.3.4 Evaluation of Expansion

Expansion Alternatives
Alternative 1: Twin Existing Facility and Add Two Detritor Tanks
Advantages
Lower upgrade cost
Disadvantages
Older technology, with less efficient grit
capture over wide flow range
Operators familiar with the system and

satisfied with the existing detritor tank
performance
Existing Headworks Facility designed to allow
for twinning, reducing overall project costs

Alternative 2: New Grit Facility Using Vortex Technology
Advantages
More effective grit removal system,
capable of handling variable flows
Disadvantages
High capital cost by 50%
Use of a different technology would
increase complexity in design and
operation
Site Constraints would complicate design
and construction
Page 72
Report Ref# 250101
5.3.5 Proposed Grit Removal

Removal Design Concept
Based on the evaluation above, the proposed grit removal design concept is Alternative 1 which includes
twinning of the existing facility by adding 2 detritor tanks (same size as existing). The grit conveying
equipment (slurry pumps, grit classifiers and grit conveyors) would also be twinned to suit. The existing
odour control system would be expanded if a detailed engineering evaluation determined this was necessary.
The twinned grit removal facility and screenings facility would be constructed as an integrated process unit
and one construction contract.

As described previously, the construction of the expansion of the Headworks building is relatively straight
forward. No significant impacts to the public or the environment are anticipated. However, to ensure that
there is no overall additional impact in this work area, the existing odour control system in the building area
would be expanded as required. The outdoor detritor tanks would be structurally designed to allow for the
possibility that the tanks could be covered and an odour control system installed in the future if necessary.
5.4 Primary Treatment

The following section presents the evaluation of expansion alternatives for primary treatment.
5.4.1 Existing
Existing Process Description
The primary clarifiers serve to settle readily settleable solids in the raw sewage. Raw sludge is collected and
pumped from the bottom of the clarifiers, and scum is collected from the top. The combined primary sludge
and scum is sent to the digesters for stabilization.
The Mid-Halton WWTP is equipped with four parallel, 2 pass rectangular primary clarifiers. Each tank is
equipped with two longitudinal chain and flight sludge and scum collection mechanisms, one for each pass,
and a single cross collector for sludge removal. The primary clarifiers provide a total surface area of 1,600 m2
The Design Criteria for the Primary Clarifiers is outlined in Table 5.6 below.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 73
Table 5.6 Design Criteria for the Primary Clarifiers at the Mid-Halton WWTP
Parameter
Process Design Flow (Peak Daily) for four
clarifiers (m3/d)
Surface Overflow Rate at Peak Day Flow
(m3/m2/d)
Surface Area per tank (m2)
Minimum TSS Removal Efficiency
Minimum BOD Removal Efficiency
Primary Sludge Pumping
Design Criteria
150,000 (m3/d) or 150 ML/day
93.75
400 m2 x 4 tanks
50 %
35 %
Four (4) each 7.6 L/s

Primary clarifier design criteria to achieve the Mid-Halton WWTP expansion to Phase V are presented in
Table 5.7 below.
Table 5.7 Design Criteria for Primary Clarifiers (at Phase V Flows)
Parameter
Value (ML/day)
Additional Process Design Flow Required for Expansion
104,000 (m3/d) or 104 ML/day
(Peak Daily 2 X peak factor including sidestream flows)

Design Surface Overflow Rate (m3/m2/day)
70

Alternative technologies were considered for the expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP primary treatment
process, as follows:
Equalization Storage Tank
Construct Additional Conventional Primary Clarifiers

- Construct new rectangular PCs
Chemically enhanced Primary Treatment (CEPT)

- Construct new rectangular PC, new building housing chemical storage and metering pumps.
High Rate Clarification using Actiflo

Alternative 1: Equalization Storage Tank
In this option, an equalization storage tank was considered to smooth out and equalize flows and reduce
peak flows to the primary clarifiers, to reduce the number of primary clarifiers required. This option was
screened out as not suitable at Mid Halton because of:
Page 74
Report Ref# 250101
Large Tank footprint for equalization tank
The peak flow durations are long, and so even a very large tank will overfill during a long storm event.
The equalization tank can generate potential odours and adds operational complexity
Not expandable solution and new effluent sewer and outfall ultimately required,
High cost required for large tanks
Design and operations site specific, introducing risks to the process
Alternative 2: Conventional Primary Clarifiers

Advantages
Lower upgrade cost
Disadvantages
None
Proven technology
Matches existing infrastructure, and
operating staff are familiar with it
Alternative 3: Chemically Enhanced Primary Clarifier (CEPT)

In this option, chemicals are added upstream of primary clarifiers to enhance settling characteristics of solids
and improve performance.
Advantages
Higher solids removal efficiency
Disadvantages
Higher upgrade cost by 20%
Higher operation and maintenance cost
Complex operation
Alternative 4: Actiflo System

In this process, similar to option 3, chemicals are added upstream to enchance settling characteristics of
solids. In addition, this proprietary process includes the addition of ballast particles (similar to sand), that
are introduced into the process to further speed up the settling characteristics of solids. This process is well
suited to constrained sites where there is little space available. Its most common application in North
America is for water treatment facilities. However, the process is only beginning to be adapted to wastewater
and combined sewer applications. The process requires the pumping of sand and removal of sand particles in
the process, which add complexity to the process. For Mid Halton this application has been screened out as
not suitable at Mid Halton because of:
Operational issues in full scale systems which would have to be addressed
Coagulant dosage would need to be closely monitored to ensure design conditions are met
Sludge treatment/removal may have negative impacts on the existing sludge digesters
Report Ref# 250101
Page 75
Relatively new technology for CSO/SSO abatement without a history of long term performance, which
introduces risk to the wastewater treatment process
The process is highly complex compared to primary clarifiers, and not as robust because of its relative
complexity.
Higher operations and maintenance requirements (costs) compared to conventional primary clarifiers.
5.4.5 Proposed Primary Treatment Design Concept

Based on the evaluation above, the proposed primary treatment design concept is Alternative 2 which
includes the construction of additional conventional primary clarifiers.
The following Table 5.8 outlines the proposed design for the primary clarifiers:
Table 5.8 Design Criteria for the New Primary Clarifiers at the Mid-Halton WWTP
Parameter
Additional Design Flow Required (Peak
Daily)
Number of tanks and size proposed
Surface Area per tank (m2)
Surface Overflow Rate at Peak Day Flow
(m3/m2/d)
Minimum TSS Removal Efficiency
Minimum BOD Removal Efficiency
Design Criteria
104 ML/day
Four (4) tanks
370 m2
70
50 %
35 %
There is the potential that there may be re-evaluations and adjustments of the above design during the
subsequent detailed design process. However none of these adjustments would significantly affect these
proposed initial design concepts.

The construction of the new primary clarifiers is relatively straight forward. No significant impacts to the
public or the environment are anticipated.
Primary treatment has the potential to generate odours generation at sewage treatment plants. At welloperated plants, where sludge levels are kept low, primary clarifiers do not represent a significant odour
source. In the event of odours from this source, as a contingency measure, the existing ferric chloride
chemical injection system may assist in reducing odours, as ferric chloride has the capability to precipitate
and remove hydrogen sulphide (a potential source of odour). The proposed tankage would be structurally
5.5 Secondary Treatment

This section of the report presents a detailed evaluation of alternative technologies for secondary treatment for
the Mid-Halton WWTP IV and V expansion. The secondary treatment process consists of the following
components:
Page 76
Aeration
Secondary clarification
Report Ref# 250101
The following sub-sections present an overview of the existing conditions and the criteria to be considered in
developing a preferred design concept for each treatment component, followed by the assessment of
alternatives and recommendation of the preferred. A discussion of potential impacts and proposed mitigation
measures for each preferred design concept is also provided.

The Mid-Halton WWTP operates as a conventional activated sludge treatment process. The process includes
aeration and secondary clarification, and consists of aerated biological reactors followed by secondary
clarifiers. In the biological reactors, suspended biomass degrades the influent organic material. The biomass is
subsequently separated from wastewater in the secondary clarifiers. The effluent is discharged, while the
thickened biomass from the secondary clarifier underflow is recycled to the head of the aeration tank to
maintain a desired biomass concentration and a portion of the sludge is wasted to remove the excess biomass
growth.
There are a total of six aeration tanks at the Mid-Halton WWTP, consisting of two 4,000 m3 rectangular tanks,
two 4,800 m3 rectangular tanks and two 3,800 m3 circular tanks. Together, this provides a total aeration tank
volume of 25,200 m3. The rectangular aeration tanks currently have provisions for both step-feed and plugflow operation. The aeration system was designed for year-round nitrification (with an SRT of 8 days).
Air (oxygen) is supplied to maintain biological activity for BOD5 and ammonia removal (nitrification). Air is
provided to the rectangular tanks by seven 6,600 m3/h (200 KW) positive displacement blowers in a dedicated
blower gallery. Air to the circular tank is provided by a 5,340 m3/h (132 KW) positive displacement blower in
another dedicated blower gallery. Fine-bubble diffused aeration is provided through a grid ceramic diffusers,
without gas cleaning, installed within the aeration tanks.
The aeration system is separated into two parallel treatment trains, as follows:
Two 4,000 m3 rectangular aeration tanks discharge into the north circular aeration tank
The other two 4,800 m3 rectangular aeration tank discharge into the south circular aeration tank,
The effluent from the two aeration trains each feed a set of four secondary clarifiers.
Secondary clarification is provided in eight parallel, three-pass rectangular clarifiers, providing a total surface
area of 4,536 m2. The secondary clarifiers are equipped with chain and flight sludge removal mechanisms to a
sludge cross-collector loading to a hopper.
There are a total of ten return activated sludge (RAS) pumps located in the RAS pump galleries to transfer
sludge from the clarifiers to aeration tanks. There are a total of three waste activated sludge (WAS) pumps to
direct the WAS to the solids treatment facility for thickening. RAS pumps also divert WAS from the RAS
discharge headers to thickening.
Ferric chloride is used for chemical phosphorous removal. Dual point injection is provided with flexibility
for dosing the chemical into both the primary clarifier inlet and the secondary clarifier inlet.

The preferred treatment alternative is based on providing an average secondary treatment capacity of 130,000
m3/d and a peak capacity of 260,000 m3/d. The expanded plant shall achieve year-round nitrification.
Design criteria for secondary treatment at the expanded Mid-Halton WWTP are presented in Table 5.9.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 77
Table 5.9 Design Criteria for Secondary Treatment (at 130,000 m3/d)
Parameter
Value
Aeration Tanks
Hydraulic retention time (HRT) (h)
Maximum mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) (mg/L)
Minimum average solids retention time (SRT) (day)
Secondary Clarifiers
8
3,300
8
Peak surface overflow rate (SOR) (m3/m2/d)

Peak solids loading rate (SLR) (kg/m2/d) at 100% RAS
rate
37
170

Initially, a long-list of secondary treatment alternatives was developed for the proposed Mid-Halton WWTP
Phase IV and V expansion, as follows:
Activated sludge process (ASP)
Membrane bioreactor (MBR)
Integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS)
Rotating biological contactor (RBC)
Trickling filter/solids contactor (TF/SC)
Biological aerated filter (BAF)
Sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
Biological nutrient removal (BNR)
The long list secondary treatment alternatives encompass a broad range of process and design technologies for
the expanded plant (refer to Nov 27, 2008 Technical Memorandum, included in Appendix B11, for further
background information about the long list). A screening process was developed to asses these technologies
and process options based on must-meet criteria to obtain a short-list. If any single criterion was not met for
a given alternative, then it was not included in the short-list of options to be considered for the plant
expansion. In other words, each alternative must meet all screening criteria.
In summary, the TF/FC, BAF and SBR technologies were screened from further consideration from the long
list of alternatives.
The TF/FC and BAF processes are not particularly well suited to retrofit in an existing ASP treatment plant,
and would involve significant construction to provide new secondary treatment facilities. The SBR would
make little use of the existing secondary treatment process components. Further, this technology has not been
applied for municipal sewage treatment at a similar hydraulic capacity as the Mid-Halton WWTP Phase IV
and V capacity.
The following five alternatives were short-listed for more detailed evaluation using the decision-making
models:
Page 78
Report Ref# 250101
Alternative 1: Activated sludge process (ASP)
Alternative 2: Membrane bioreactor (MBR)
Alternative 3: Integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS)
Alternative 4: Rotating biological contactor (RBC)
Alternative 5: Biological nutrient removal (BNR)
Process flow schematics for the short-listed alternatives are provided in Appendix B11. Brief overviews of the
short listed alternatives, including a list of advantages and disadvantages, are provided below.
Alternative 1: Activated Sludge Process (ASP)
The Mid-Halton WWTP currently uses the activated sludge process (ASP). This suspended growth biological
treatment system is a flexible process that can be used in a number of modified configurations, including
conventional ASP (current operation) and step-feed operation that may assist with process control during
shorter duration wet weather (peak flow) events.
A summary of advantages and disadvantages of this option is provided below.
Advantages
Available land for expansion
Proven technology; high operator
confidence
Low construction impact; construct new
treatment train
Lowest capital and life cycle cost
Disadvantages
Medium operating cost
The process flow schematic of this alternative is shown in Appendix B11, Figure 1 in the PFD and Site
Layouts section. The conceptual site plan layout for this alternative is shown in Appendix B11, Figure 6 in
the PFD and Site Layouts section.
Alternative 2: Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)
The membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology represents an advanced activated sludge wastewater treatment
process that is capable of producing a virtually suspended solids-free, tertiary treated quality effluent,
including potentially very low total phosphorus (TP) effluent concentrations. The process combines a
biological reactor (existing aeration tanks would be re-used) followed by new membrane tanks that provide
direct in-situ filtration of the mixed liquor thus eliminating the need for external clarification and filtration.
This process is capable of being retrofit into the existing ASP plant, whereby the existing secondary clarifier
basins would be retrofitted and used to install the membrane tanks.
The MBR process requires other associated plant upgrading, including:
fine screening (2 3 mm screen spacing) to avoid fouling,
provision of covers over existing secondary clarifiers to enclose the membrane tanks,
construction of new process building to house membrane equipment (air scour blowers, permeate pumps,
backwash pumps, etc).
Report Ref# 250101
Page 79
Advantages
Lowest footprint
Process technology proven, but limited
installations at plants of similar capacity
Disadvantages
Highest operating cost
Construction impact caused by retrofit of
existing secondary clarifiers
Life cycle cost about 300% greater than
ASP
Alternative 3: Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge (IFAS)
This high rate aerobic process is a modification of the existing ASP process, which makes use of suspended
growth biomass (current operation) and the introduction of small, lightweight, rigid plastic carrier media for
the development of biofilm,. This has the effect of creating a higher rate of treatment in the aeration tank, as
the media are added to the aeration tank and are kept in suspension by coarse bubble aeration and/or mixing.
Reactor effluent is clarified in a secondary clarifier from which there is recirculation of separated biomass.
This process is capable of being retrofit into the existing ASP plant, whereby the aeration tanks are modified
to accept the carrier media. Screens would be installed at the inlet and outlet of the aeration tank(s) for fixed
film media retention.
The IFAS process requires other associated plant upgrading, including retrofit of the fine bubble aeration
system (including blowers) to coarse bubble aeration.
Advantages
Lower land requirement (less aeration tank
volume)
Disadvantages
Technology evolving; limited full scale
operating experience; questionable degree
of operator confidence
existing aeration tanks
ASP
Layouts section. The conceptual site plan layout for this alternative is shown in Appendix B11, Figure 8 in the
PFD and Site Layouts section.
Alternative 4: Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC)
The existing ASP process provides for carbonaceous oxidation as well as ammonia removal (nitrification).
The proposed RBC process alternative will result in the existing ASP being converted to provide treatment for
carbonaceous oxidation only and the addition of RBCs as a polishing step to provide nitrification.
Based on the existing Mid-Halton hydraulic profile, there is potential for using RBC technology for a separate
nitrification step. Although a new RBC treatment process would result, the expansion needs of the existing
ASP plant would be mitigated since nitrification would not occur in the ASP.
The RBC process would receive secondary clarifier effluent, and typically involves a once-through flow
arrangement comprised of a number of passes of rotating biological contactors (i.e., plastic disc bundles
mounted on rotating shafts) in series, separated by baffles. The rotating synthetic support media are kept in
Page 80
Report Ref# 250101
partial submergence (i.e., approximately 40%). The air-driven submerged biological contactor (SBC) with
75-90% submergence represents a relatively new alternative. Due to the low mass of nitrifying biofilm, there
is no need for the RBC effluent to receive a final clarification stage.
Advantages
Low construction impact; construct new
treatment train
Lower operating cost
Disadvantages
Very high footprint required for RBC
tanks (largest)
ASP
Limited installations at similar capacity
plants
Alternative 5: Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)
The existing ASP has provision for dual point chemical addition to assist with phosphorous removal. The
BNR process provides for biological removal of phosphorous and nitrogen nutrient compounds. Effluent
phosphorous concentrations can be produced equivalent to other secondary treatment processes.
The BNR mode of operation involves constructing cells that are operated in either anaerobic or anoxic modes
to provide nutrient removal in addition to organic removal and nitrification.
This process is capable of being retrofit into the existing ASP process, and will result in additional bioreactor
tankage to accomplish the required treatment. As a result of the increased process tanks, the BNR process has
a larger footprint than the conventional ASP.
Advantages
Lower operating cost (no chemicals for
phosphorous removal)
Lowest biosolids volume generated (but
only about 6% lower)
Disadvantages
Higher land requirement (additional
biological tanks for nutrient removal)
Somewhat higher operating complexity
(process control) compared to ASP
biological process tanks
ASP

A comprehensive evaluation matrix was prepared (attached in Appendix B11) showing an impact assessment
of all of the criteria for each secondary treatment alternative. However, it was established that several criteria
had common low impacts for each alternative. The common low impact criteria include:
Report Ref# 250101
Page 81
Odours issues: None if properly designed and operated
Traffic impacts: None
Expansion within existing plant boundary: Yes
Impact on adjacent recreational uses: None
Protection of archaeological findings: Will be removed before construction
Health risks: Public none; Operators - minimal
Meets PWQO: Yes
Impact on Water Purification Plant intakes: No
Impact on air quality: Minimal
Impact on terrestrial systems: None
Impact on ground water: None
Climate change impacts: Limited
Proven Technology: Yes, but not all at similar capacity
Eliminating of the above criteria allowed a summary evaluation matrix to be prepared showing only those
criteria which differentiated between the alternatives. The summary evaluation matrix is provided on Table
5.10 on the following page.
Page 82
Report Ref# 250101
Table 5.10 Summary Secondary Treatment Evaluation Matrix
Activated
Sludge
Process
Impact on
visual
character
Compatible
with
existing
plant
Supports
build-out
Matches
existing
WWTP
layout
Matches
existing
WWTP
layout
Yes
New
Membrane
Lowest
Bioprocess; low
foot-print
reactors
foot-print
Integrated
Fixed-film Lower footActivated
print
Sludge
Yes, low
foot-print
Capital
Cost
Low
impact; new Low (100%)
train
O & M Cost
Overall
Assessment
Medium
(125%)
Recommended
Yes
Medium
impact;
retrofit
existing
Very High
(400%)
Highest
(175%)
Not
recommended
Yes
Medium
impact;
retrofit
existing
Medium
(150%)
Medium
(125%)
Not
recommended
Ph IV & V
Lowest
(100%)
Not
recommended
Lowest
(100%)
Not
recommended
Ph IV & V
New
Rotating
Largest
process,
Biological
foot-print largest footContactor
print
Yes, but
less
flexibility
for site
expansion
Modified
process,
higher footprint
Yes, but
less
flexibility
for site
expansion
Biological
Larger
Nutrient
foot-print
Removal
Schedule/
Constructability
Low
Very High
impact; new
(450%)
train
Medium
impact;
retrofit
existing
Medium
(175%)
Minor environmental impact or technically favourable

Moderate environmental impact or technically less favourable
Major environmental impact or technically unfavourable
5.5.5 Proposed Secondary Treatment Design Concept

Based on the results of the comprehensive evaluation, the recommended secondary treatment alternative is to
expand the existing activated sludge process.
The comprehensive evaluation favoured this secondary treatment alternative for practically all the selected
criterion. The only exception was operation and maintenance cost where the ASP process was not the lowest.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 83
Also, this alternative does not have the lowest footprint. The proposed initial design concept is shown in
Appendix B11, Figure 11 in the PFD and Site Layouts section.
5.5.5.1 Additional Truck Traffic

The construction of the expanded WWTP will result in additional truck traffic for chemical deliveries and
biosolids trucking commensurate with the increased flows to the plant. The proposed site is located in a nonresidential area, as such, the expected increase in traffic is not expected to impact the residents of the
community.
In order to minimize the negative impacts from the additional truck traffic as a result of construction, the
disruption of private vehicular accesses will be minimized.
5.5.6 Phosphorus Removal

The following section discusses the phosphorus removal process, design criteria and the expansion
alternatives. Alternatives are evaluated to determine a recommended design concept. The impacts and
mitigation measures for this recommended concept are addressed.
5.5.6.1 Existing Process Description

Phosphorus removal at the Mid-Halton WWTP is achieved by the addition of ferric chloride. The ferric
chloride addition system consists of two 27,300 L chemical storage tanks and three metering pumps, with the
provision of dual-point dosing before the primary clarifiers and the secondary clarifiers The plant currently
practices single-point dosing. Ferric chloride is added to the aeration tank effluent prior to entering the
secondary clarifiers. The chemical addition is flow paced based on the target ferric chloride dosage.
Historically, an average ferric chloride dosage of 14 mg/L (as iron) was added to the system, which is close to
a typical range of 15 to 30 mg/L (as iron) dosage used for solids and phosphorous precipitation based on the
experience at other plants (WEF, 1992). The plant has achieved an average effluent total phosphorus
concentration of 0.42 mg/L. This concentration is well below the current total phosphorus effluent criteria of
0.8 mg/L in the Certificate of Approval (C of A, No. 5961-7WSKLG).

A phosphorus concentration limit of 0.8 mg/L and an objective of 0.6 mg/L is required by the MOE for the
expanded Mid-Halton WWTP.
5.5.6.3 Expansion Alternatives

Two alternative technologies were considered for phosphorus removal at the expanded Mid-Halton WWTP,
as follows:
Alternative 1: Chemical precipitation of phosphorus

Alternative 2: Commercially available nutrient removal technology (i.e. Ostara technology)
A brief description of these two alternatives follows:

Chemical Addition
Chemical addition is a proven technology that has been widely used for phosphorus removal in Ontario.
Chemical such as ferric chloride, ferrous chloride or alum is added to the wastewater prior to primary
clarifiers and/or secondary clarifiers to enhance phosphorus as well as solids removal. The Mid Halton
WWTP uses ferric chloride.
Page 84
Report Ref# 250101
Nutrient Recovery Technology

Nutrient recovery technology is an emerging wastewater treatment technology being developed by
commercial enterprise, for recovering nutrients (i.e. phosphorus and ammonia) from wastewater treatment
processes and producing a potentially marketable end product (i.e., fertilizer). Ostara Nutrient Recovery
Technology is an example of one such solution. The first commercial-scale Ostara nutrient recovery plant has
been operating since May 2007 in City of Edmontons Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment plant.
The Ostara process is a fluidized bed reactor that can be integrated directly into specific wastewater treatment
streams having high nutrient concentrations (such as dewatering system liquor). The concentrated liquid
waste stream (i.e. centrate or filtrate recycle stream) having a high concentration of nutrients is fed into the
reactor. The reactor processes the sludge liquids and recovers phosphorus and ammonia, and converts them
into an environmentally safe fertilizer.
5.5.6.4 Evaluation of Phosphorus Removal Alternatives

Chemical addition is currently used for phosphorus removal at the Mid-Halton WWTP. Using this method, a
phosphorus removal efficiency of 92-95% historically has achieved based on an average phosphorus inlet
concentration of 6 mg/L. The plant historically has consistently satisfied the C of A effluent phosphorus limit
of 0.8 mg/L, as well as the proposed effluent objective of 0.6 mg/L.
The Ostara process is a new technology for nutrients recovery. The Ostara reactor can extract approximately
75-95% of the phosphorus and 10-50% of ammonia from sludge dewatering liquor (i.e. centrate or filtrate).
Therefore, loading of nutrients returned to the secondary treatment process would be reduced significantly.
This reduced loading would potentially mitigate the secondary treatment expansion needs.
However, the Ostara nutrient removal technology has a limited application. The inlet phosphorus
concentration can not be lower than 20-30 mg/L (preferably greater than 60 mg/L) of ortho-phosphate (PO4P) to be cost effective. In a municipal wastewater treatment plant, the streams most suitable for treatment
using the Ostara process are the digestion and dewatering side streams (i.e. centrate, filtrate, supernatant and
other sludge dewatering liquor recycle streams to wastewater treatment), since they contain higher nutrient
concentrations. It does not appear feasible that the Ostara process has a direct application for phosphorus
removal from primary or secondary effluent, due to their much lower phosphorus concentrations.
A summary of advantages and disadvantages of the two phosphorus removal alternatives is provided in Table
5.11 below.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 85
Table 5.11 Comparison of Phosphorus Removal Alternatives

Alternative
Chemical
addition
Nutrient Removal
Technology (i.e.
Ostara)
Advantages
Proven technology
Current practice at the Mid-Halton

STP
Ability to achieve effluent
phosphorus levels in the range of 0.3
to 0.5 mg/L
No major capital cost requirements
Significantly reduced nutrient
loadings from side streams returned to

the secondary treatment process
Potential revenue from by-products

(i.e. fertilizer)
Disadvantages
Higher chemical dosages are
required to achieve better removal,
with correspondingly higher sludge
generation and management costs
Limited application (i.e. side stream

treatment only)
Emerging technology; limited full
scale operating experience
5.5.6.5 Proposed Phosphorus Removal Design Concept

Based on the results of the evaluation, Ostara phosphorus recovery alternative has been screened from further
consideration since its application is limited to the side stream treatment process with high nutrient
concentrations. The chemical addition method is the recommended phosphorus removal alternative for the
expanded Mid-Halton WWTP, for the following reasons:
Proven technology, employed at Mid Halton and other Region plants, to consistently meet the proposed
effluent phosphorus limit and objective
Flexibility to use single or dual point dosing, to increasing phosphorus removal efficiency
The preferred design concept will be a continuation of the current practice of phosphorus removal at the plant.
The expanded chemical dosing system will include adequate facilities for the storage, handling and
application of bulk liquid chemicals as follows:
Chemical storage tanks and metering pumps
Instrumentation and control to automate dosing based on flow.
The application of Ostara phosphorus recovery technology for the existing WWTP side streams (i.e. WAS
thickening filtrate, digester supernatant, and centrifuge centrate) can be evaluated further during the
preliminary design phase.

The proposed secondary treatment design concept is to expand the existing activated sludge process. The
design concept makes best use of the existing site availability, existing treatment infrastructure, and can meet
effluent criteria and objectives.
The activated sludge process is a proven technology that is currently used in the existing Mid-Halton WWTP
with high operator confidence. Therefore, additional operator training will not be an issue. However,
provision will be required as part of the expansion construction contract to ensure any documentation (i.e.
operation and maintenance manuals) or special resources are made available to the operations staff prior to
commissioning the new works.
Page 86
Report Ref# 250101
There will be sufficient site area for the construction of the new treatment train for the expanded plant
capacity of 125,000 m3/d. Several potential negative impacts that may arise from the construction activities
necessary to build the expanded treatment plant for secondary treatment. These include, but not limited to,
traffic interruptions, noise and vibration. Odour would not have significant impact with well-designed and
properly operated aeration tanks and secondary clarifiers.
Noise and vibration impacts will be considered during design and include noise attenuating building features
and enclosing potential significant sources such as motors and blowers.
Temporary mitigation efforts will be implemented during the construction phase to address other impacts. For
example, a separate construction entrance will be used to minimize impact on plant operations vehicular
traffic, regular cleaning of the plant and adjacent municipal roads will be completed, and working hours
during construction will be limited during the days, and generally avoided on weekends.
5.6 Disinfection
The following section presents the evaluation of expansion alternatives for disinfection at the Mid-Halton
WWTP.

Currently, disinfection of Mid-Halton WWTP and Oakville Southwest (OSW) WWTP effluent is provided at
a combined ultraviolet irradiation (UV) disinfection facility located adjacent to Lake Ontario and the OSW
WWTP. The system consists of low pressure, high intensity UV bulbs contained in two channels. The
Oakville SW WWTP UV facility was constructed with three channels with the 3rd channel available for the
proposed Mid-Halton WWTP Phases IV and V expansion.

As a result of the outcome of the assessment of effluent sewer and outfall needs for the Mid-Halton WWTP
Phases IV and V expansion, a separate disinfection system is required at the Mid-Halton plant. This is
necessary to address hydraulic constraints of the effluent sewer between Mid-Halton WWTP and Oakville
Southwest WWTTP.
The future facility will be designed to disinfect the Mid-Halton WWTP effluent to meet necessary bacterial
guidelines prior to discharge to Lake Ontario. The disinfection criterion at the plant is expected to be an E.
coli concentration of 200 cfu/100 mL (monthly geometric mean), with a design objective of 150 cfu/100 mL.
The disinfection process would be sized to disinfect the peak flow of 390,000 m3/d.
The design of the future disinfection facilities will satisfy the Environment Canada and MOE requirement to
produce non-toxic effluent with respect to chlorine residual being discharged to the receiving water.
5.6.3 Disinfection Alternatives

Two disinfection alternatives for wastewater disinfection were considered for evaluation as follows:
Alternative 1: Chlorination/dechlorination
Alternative 2: Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection.
A brief description of these two alternatives follows:
Report Ref# 250101
Page 87
Alternative 1: Chlorination/Dechlorination
This option would involve disinfection of the secondary effluent (and any secondary treatment bypass flow i.e. primary effluent) using chlorination followed by dechlorination.
Chlorination has been a common disinfectant for wastewater treatment throughout North America to
inactivate microorganisms and viruses. The chemical disinfectant typically is supplied as liquid chlorine
(sodium hypochlorite) or chlorine gas.
With this approach, there is potential for formation of disinfection by-products, which can have a detrimental
impact on the receiving water, and for chlorine residual in the effluent. Free chlorine remaining in the
wastewater, even at low concentrations, is highly toxic to aquatic life in the receiver.
Dechlorination of the effluent is required to virtually eliminate chlorine residual in the receiver. The most
commonly used chemicals for dechlorination are sulphur dioxide (a compressed gas), and liquid sodium
bisulphite.
Alternative 2: Ultraviolet (UV) Irradiation

This option would involve using ultraviolet (UV) irradiation to disinfect the secondary effluent (and any
secondary treatment bypass flow - i.e. primary effluent).
UV disinfection uses electromagnetic energy from mercury arc lamps to destroy or inactivate cells of bacteria
and viruses. This method has become common in municipal wastewater treatment over the past 20 years, and
is the current practice at all Regional wastewater plants.
5.6.4 Evaluation of Disinfection Alternatives

The two disinfection alternatives have been evaluated based on technical requirements. A comprehensive
evaluation matrix showing an impact assessment of all of the criteria for each expansion alternative is
included in Appendix B11. Table 5.12 summarizes the comprehensive evaluation.
Chlorination/dechlorination is a proven disinfection technology. However, this technology presents a risk for
operations staff (i.e. exposure to hazardous chemical during transport, handling and storage) and aquatic life.
UV disinfection also is a proven technology. Recent advances in the design of UV system have allowed
operation at a lower energy cost, and a lower maintenance cost. Although direct exposure to UV light is
hazardous, this can be mitigated through proper design and equipment installation. UV disinfection generally
is considered to be the safer disinfection method, since its use eliminates the handling of hazardous, corrosive
chemicals, eliminates the formation of disinfection by-products. Furthermore, additional operational training
would not be an issue as UV disinfection is the current practice at the Mid-Halton WWTP.
Page 88
Report Ref# 250101
Table 5.12 Comparison of Disinfection Alternatives

Alternative
Chlorination/Dechlorination
Advantages
Cost comparable with UV system
Simple maintenance requirements
Ultra-Violet (UV)
Disinfection
Compatible with existing Halton

systems
Non-toxic effluent
No chemical handling with
associated risks
No risk of chemicals reaching the
environment
Disadvantages
Health & safety risk with
handling chemicals
Some traffic impact for
chemical delivery
Risk of discharge of chlorinated
effluent should dechlorination
system fail
Lamp replacement and
maintenance issues
5.6.5 Proposed Disinfection Design Concept

The recommended disinfection process for the Mid-Halton WWTP expansion is UV disinfection.
The proposed location of the UV disinfection facility is depicted on the perspective view of the proposed
expansion, Figure 5.3. The new UV disinfection facility would be located downstream of the secondary
clarifiers. There would be enough space for this facility.
6 Sludge and Biosolids Alternatives

This section of the Report presents an evaluation of alternative technologies for biosolids handling and
management at the Mid-Halton WWTP for the Phases IV and V expansion to 125,000 m3/d average day flow.
The biosolids processes include the following components:
Sidestream waste activate sludge (WAS) thickening
Biosolids stabilization
Biosolids dewatering
The following sub-sections present an overview of the existing conditions and the criteria to be considered in
developing a preferred design concept for biosolids management, followed by the assessment of alternatives
and recommendation of the preferred alternative for the expanded plant. A discussion of potential impacts and
proposed mitigation measures is also provided.
6.1 WAS Thickening

The following section presents the process of WAS thickening, the design criteria and proposed expansion
concept, and related impacts and mitigation measures.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 89

Waste activate sludge (WAS) is generated through operation of the secondary treatment process. WAS
thickening is undertaken to reduce the sludge volume, by removing liquid, prior to discharge (along with raw
sludge from the primary clarifiers) to the digesters for stabilization.
Rotary drum thickening (RDT) technology is currently employed for WAS thickening at the Mid-Halton
WWTP. There are a total of three rotary drum thickeners (2 duties and 1 stand-by) located in the existing
biosolids building. The RTDs operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. After thickening, the solids
concentration of WAS is increased to about 4 to 5% total solids (TS) from less than 1% (TS).
The thickened WAS is sent to anaerobic digesters for digestion. By thickening the WAS, the digestion
volume required is reduced and digestion is more efficient. The filtrate produced during the WAS thickening
process is returned to the plant headworks for further treatment. Odour control equipment is provided in the
biosolids building to minimize the odour impacts from the WAS thickening process.
The present WAS thickening technology is robust, reliable and meets all regulatory standards. Further, the
existing biosolids building was designed to accommodate expansion to this unit process.
Therefore no alternative technologies were contemplated for the Mid-Halton WWTP Phases IV and V
expansion.

Design criteria for the WAS thickening process are presented in Table 6.1. The design criteria were
developed based on the design biosolids generation rates, as indicated in Section 3.1.2.4.
Table 6.1 Design Criteria for WAS thickening (at 130,000 m3/d)
Parameter
Peak month WAS TSS loading (kg/d)
3
Value
22,300
WAS flow (m /d)
4,460
WAS influent solids concentration (%)
0.50%
Minimum thickened WAS solids concentration (%)
3 to 5%
6.1.3 Proposed WAS Thickening Design Concept

For the proposed expansion, additional rotary drum thickener (s) (RDTs) and ancillary equipment will be
incorporated into the existing biosolids building. The new RDTs will be operated 7 days per week and 24
hours per day, and will be selected for unattended operation. The number of additional RDTs will be further
addressed in the conceptual design report, but it is currently anticipated that only one additional RDT will be
required.

The primary impact is odour. The existing odour control equipment installed in the biosolids building is
sufficient for continued use with the expanded WAS thickening system.
6.2 Sludge Digestion

The following section addresses the sludge digestion process at the Mid-Halton WWTP. The existing process
is described, design criteria are used to develop a proposed design concept, and the impacts and mitigation
measures for this design concept are addressed.
Page 90
Report Ref# 250101

Anaerobic digestion is used for the stabilization of raw sludge and thickened WAS at the Mid Halton WWTP.
The purpose of sludge stabilization is to reduce the total mass of the solids (by volatile solids destruction),
destroy pathogens and make it easier to dewater the biosolids.
Currently the Mid-Halton plant has two primary digesters (total 7,776 m3) and one secondary digester (7,300
m3).
In primary digesters, the sludge is heated to a temperature of 35 C and is mixed continuously by gas in the
absence of oxygen. The hydraulic retention time of the sludge is 15 days. The sludge is decomposed to
provide a stable substance. The end product of digestion is a stabilized sludge (biosolids). A by-product of
the digestion process is methane gas, which is beneficially re-used at the Mid Halton WWTP as fuel for the
boilers to heat the primary digesters and for in-plant heating. Excess gas is burned through flare.
After primary digestion, the digested sludge overflows to the secondary digester for gravity thickening. No
mixing or heating is provided in the secondary digester. After storage in the secondary digester, the digested
sludge is hauled off-site or transferred to dewatering. The supernatant is returned to plant headworks for
further treatment.
The secondary digester at the Mid-Halton WWTP has the flexibility to operate as a primary digester during
peak flow periods or maintenance period when one primary digester is out of service.
The present anaerobic sludge digestion technology is robust, reliable and meets all regulatory standards.
Further, the existing site was designed to accommodate expansion of this unit process.
Therefore no alternative digestion technologies were contemplated for the Mid-Halton WWTP Phases IV and
V expansion.

Design criteria for the sludge digestion process are presented in Table 6.2. The design criteria were
Table 6.2 Design Criteria for Sludge Digestion (at 130,000 m3/d)
Parameter
Primary Sludge
Peak month solids loading (kg/d)
3
Flow (m /d)
Solids concentration (%)
Thickened Waste Activated Sludge
3
Flow (m /d)
Sludge to Anaerobic Digestion
3
Flow (m /d)
Hydraulic retention time (days)
Report Ref# 250101
Value
27,200
780
3.50%
21,200
420
5%
48,400
1,210
4%
15
Page 91
6.2.3 Proposed Sludge Digestion Design Concept

The increased treatment capacity of the plant results in a need for additional digestion capacity. The MidHalton WWTP has room to accommodate an expansion of the digesters at the existing site. To accommodate
the increased capacity, a new primary digester, or a new secondary digester, or a combination thereof could
be constructed. If necessary, the future expansion may warrant commencing construction of a new digester
complex to the west of the existing digester complex, complete with new mixing pumps, boilers, heat
exchangers, and gas control systems.
6.2.4 Impact and Mitigation Measures

With the construction of a new primary digester, the gas production will be increased in the digestion process.
During detailed design the digester piping will need to be reviewed to ensure there is enough capacity to
accommodate the increased gas production.
It is envisioned that the biogas will continued to be re-used as a fuel for the boilers to heat the primary
digesters and for in-plant heating. This approach will minimize the excess gas that is flared, which will
mitigate the impact on air quality and potential climate change.
Additional supernatant will be produced and returned to the plant headworks. The expanded plant will
accommodate the increased loadings (i.e. mainly ammonia).
There are no odour issues expected if the digesters are adequately designed and operated, based on historical
plant operation and the absence of odour complaints.
6.3 Biosolids Dewatering

The following section addresses the biosolids dewatering process. The existing process is described, the
design criteria are presented with the expansion alternatives, and the recommended design concept is
proposed. The impacts and mitigation measures for this concept are also addressed.

Liquid biosolids from the anaerobic digestion process is dewatered in the existing biosolids building prior to
off site removal. This mitigates the amount of trucking to and from the site, and reduces biosolids haulage
costs.
Dewatering is used to further reduce the water content of the biosolids. Two dewatering centrifuges (one duty
and one standby) are provided for this purpose, each having a capacity of 22L/s and a dry solids loading rate
of 2 tonnes/h. Through the dewatering process, the solids content in the biosolids is increased from about 2
3.5% TS to about 28 30% TS, which significantly reduces the volume. The dewatered biosolids cake is
collected in the two existing cake storage bins and hauled off-site by trucks. The centrate from the biosolids
dewatering process is pumped to the plant headworks for further treatment. Odour control equipment is
provided in the biosolids building to minimize the odour impacts from the biosolids dewatering process.
The present biosolids dewatering technology is robust, reliable and meets all regulatory standards. Further,
the existing biosolids building was designed to accommodate expansion to this unit process.
Therefore no alternative technologies were contemplated for the Mid-Halton WWTP Phases IV and V
expansion.
Page 92
Report Ref# 250101

Design criteria for biosolids dewatering process are presented in Table 6.3. The design criteria were
Table 6.3 Design Criteria for Biosolids Dewatering (at 130,000 m3/d)
Parameter
Peak month biosolids generation rate (kg/d)
3
Value
33,900
Flow (m /d)
970-1700
Dewatering biosolids feed concentration (%)
2 to 3.5%
Dewatered cake concentration (%)
28-30%
6.3.3 Proposed Sludge Biosolids Dewatering Design Concept

For the proposed expansion, additional dewatering centrifuge(s) and ancillary equipment will be incorporated
into the existing biosolids building (the same building used for the WAS thickening). The new centrifuge(s)
will be operated 5 days per week and 7.5 hours per day. The number of additional dewatering centrifuge(s)
will be further addressed in the conceptual design report, but it is currently anticipated that only one
additional dewatering centrifuge will be required.

The primary impact is odour. The existing odour control equipment installed in the biosolids building is
sufficient for continued use with the expanded biosolids dewatering system.
Another potential impact is the increased site traffic due to the hauling of more biosolids off-site. The
implementation of biosolids dewatering as part of the Phase III expansion means that at a design capacity of
75 MLD, fewer than 2 trucks/day visit the site for biosolids haulage. During normal plant operation at the
increased Phase V capacity, the number of vehicles for biosolids haulage will not increase significantly. The
expanded Mid-Halton WWTP will average 2 to 3 trucks per day for biosolids hauling.
7 Odour Control
The Phase IV and V expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP will include the addition of an odour control unit at
the North Pumping Station (as discussed in Section 5.1.6) and evaluation and expansion if necessary of the
odour control unit in the headworks building (as discussed in Section 5.2.6). Odour control technology in the
biosolids building will not be expanded, as the building itself will not require expansion. This is discussed
further in Section 3.1.2.5.
The structural design of the proposed primary clarifiers and detritor tanks is such that future covering of these
tanks could be implemented in future, if deemed necessary.
8 Public and Agency Consultation

Throughout the duration of the project, extensive consultation took place with members of the public and
relevant agencies. Comments and feedback were integrated into the design process for the expansion of the
Mid-Halton WWTP.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 93
8.1 Public Consultation Overview

Public communication throughout the project is a requirement of the Class EA Process. As such, Halton
Region must submit a record of stakeholder consultation during the Mid-Halton WWTP expansion project. A
Public Communication and Consultation Plan was developed during the preliminary stages of this project to
outline a strategy for effectively obtaining feedback from members of the public. The goal of the consultation
process was to successfully provide information on the proposed project and to ensure that community would
be provided the opportunity to become engaged over the course of the Class EA. The objectives of
consultation during the expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP were to:
a) Inform public and stakeholders about the proposed project;
b) Offer educational information to the public and stakeholders regarding the project;
c) Keep internal staff, agencies and regulators fully informed of the progress of the Class EA and to hear and
integrate where possible their comments early in the process;
d) Earn political and public support for project decisions through the development of trust, credibility and
shared values;
e) Support and reinforce Halton Regions Guiding Principles for Public Consultation in planning and
management of all public consultation activities;
f) Meet or exceed the public consultation requirements of the Municipal Class EA process; and,
g) Meet liaison requirements with First Nations and aboriginal group interests.
The Communication and Consultation Plan is included in Appendix C1, and the components of the
communication process are outlined in the following sections.
8.1.1 Notice of Commencement

A Project Update was issued in local newspapers to inform the public that Halton Region would be
proceeding to Phases 3 and 4 of the Schedule C Municipal Class EA Study process for the Mid-Halton
Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase IV and V Expansion. The Update was issued in the Georgetown Free
Press, Burlington Post, Milton Canadian Champion, and Oakville Beaver on October 31, 2008 and November
7, 2008.
The Project Update also invited members of the public to be part of a Citizen Advisory Committee, which
will be discussed further in Section 8.1.6.
A copy of the Project Update Notice is included in Appendix C3.
8.1.2 Direct Mailings to Stakeholders

A direct mailing list was developed at the initiation of the project, and was continually updated over the
course of the project. Direct mailings were made to directly notify residents, landowners, politicians,
municipalities, ratepayer groups, school boards, Aboriginal/First Nations groups, Provincial and Federal
agencies, interest groups and utilities of the project. The mailing list that was utilized is included in Appendix
C5.
Additionally, parties that requested direct notification of future project milestones and status updates were
added to the project mailing list and contacted at significant milestones in the project. Letters accompanying
the Project Update Notice can be found in Appendix C3, and letters accompanying the Notice of Completion
can be found in Appendix C4. Letters that were sent specifically to First Nations and Mtis groups are found
in Appendix C22.
Page 94
Report Ref# 250101
8.1.3 Project Website

Consultation activities were further enhanced by the development of a comprehensive project website that
provided information and documentation related to the study. The project website provided all materials that
were made available to the general public in regard to the Mid-Halton WWTP expansion including:
The status of the study

The lead consultant undertaking the study
An explanation on the purpose of the study
The scope of the study
Regional contact information
PIC and additional background study documents
The project website could be found at:

http://www.halton.ca/ppw/water/ClassEA/WastewaterSystem/MidHalton_PhasesIV-V.htm.
8.1.4 Mobile Roadside Displays

Mobile displays located on the sides of major roads in the study area were used to advertise project milestones
such as upcoming Public Information Centres. Photos of these displays can be found in Appendix C6.
8.1.5 Public Information Centres #1 and #2

Two Public Information Centres (PICs) were convened during the project in order to satisfy the mandatory
Public Contact requirements of the Class EA process. The PICs for this project were held in conjunction with
the PICs for the Wastewater (Sewage) Trunk Sewer from Boyne Pumping Station to Dundas St. and Third
Line, and were organized in an open house format in which display panels were utilized to convey project
information. An information package outlining the EA process and comments forms to obtain feedback were
provided to attendees, and representatives from the Region and the consultant team were present to address
questions and discuss the next steps in the studies.
The PICs were advertised on the project website, as well as in local newspapers. PIC #1 was advertised in the
North Halton Compass and Oakville Today on April 30, 2009 and May 7, 2009 and in the Burlington Post,
Milton Canadian Champion and Oakville Beaver on May 1, 2009 and May 8, 2009. PIC #2 was advertised in
the North Halton Compass and Oakville Today on September 17, 2009 and September 24, 2009 and in the
Burlington Post, Milton Canadian Champion and Oakville Beaver on September 18, 2009 and September 25,
2009. Contacts on the direct-mailing lists, including residents in the study area, were sent letters notifying
them of the PICs. Mobile roadside signs were also used to advertise the PICs.
The first information session (PIC #1) was held on May 14, 2009 from 5:00 to 8:00 pm at St. Volodymyr
Cultural Centre in Oakville. The purpose of this meeting was to present the project objectives, an introduction
to the Municipal Class EA process, the status of the EA study, the project consultation plan, and an overview
of the existing wastewater system in terms of conditions and performance. Details of the proposed decision
making approach, long list of alternatives, screening criteria, and the detailed evaluation criteria were then
presented for the public and interested parties review and comment. In total 21 participants attended the
meeting, with 16 participants indicating they were attending for the Mid-Halton Class EA specifically. The
display panels, Information Package and Comment Form that were provided at PIC #1 were posted on the
project website, and can be found in Appendix C6.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 95
The second information session (PIC #2) was held on October 1, 2009, again from 5:00 to 8:00 pm at St.
Volodymyr Cultural Centre. The purpose of PIC #2 was to present the preliminary recommended design
alternatives resulting from the screening and detailed evaluation processes, and to obtain input and comments
from interested parties prior to the finalization of the Environmental Study Report (ESR). The following key
information was presented: screening of outfall alternatives, recommended tunnelling construction, shaft site
evaluation, recommended effluent sewer routes, shaft sites and outfall locations, screening of long-list, and
the recommended process layout. Twenty participants attended the meeting, with 13 participants indicating
they were attending for the Mid-Halton Class EA specifically. The display panels, Information Package and
Comment Form that were provided at PIC #2 were posted on the project website, and can be found in
Appendix C7.
8.1.6 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

The Project Update notice, which was published on October 31, 2008 and November 7, 2008 and is found in
Appendix C3, included an invitation for interested parties to take part in the Citizens Advisory Committee
(CAC).
The role of the CAC was to encourage early citizen and elected official participation in the decision-making
process, and to seek input and advice from them throughout the course of the project. The CAC assisted the
Project Team and Region in evaluating alternatives, addressing potential community issues, and finding the
best solution to expanding the WWTP.
The CAC consisted of seven members - three Councillors and four citizen representatives. Two citizen
representatives were residents of the Town of Oakville, one was resident of the City of Burlington, and one
was resident of the Town of Milton. The members of the CAC are listed in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Members of the Citizens Advisory Committee
Member
Allan Elgar (Chair)
Terry Quinn (Vice-Chair)
Alan Johnston
Colin Best
Derek Budgell
Brian Burton
Gourav Suri
Role
Councillor - Oakville Ward 4
Resident
Councillor - Oakville Ward 1
Councillor - Milton Wards 2 and 4
Resident
Resident
Resident
The CAC originally planned to meet four times over the course of the project, however, a fifth meeting was
deemed to be necessary and was held after PIC #2. Table 8.2 summarizes the CAC meetings. The agenda,
minutes and presentation materials for all of the CAC meetings can be found in Appendix C8.
Table 8.2 CAC Meetings and Topics Addressed
Page 96
Meeting
CAC Meeting
#1
Date
February 26,
2009
Meeting Topic
Outline of Public Consultation and Communications Plan, CAC Terms of
Reference and CAC Meeting Objectives, Class EA Terms of Reference
and background information on Mid-Halton WTTP, overview of studies
to be undertaken.
CAC Meeting
#2
April 23,
2009
Overall EA process update, long list of alternative effluent sewer

alignments, evaluation criteria, refinement of study area, approach to PIC
#1.
Report Ref# 250101
CAC Meeting
#3
June 25, 2009
Summary of PIC #1, outfall (screening and recommended short list),

effluent sewer route alternatives (screening and recommended short list),
and treatment alternatives (screening and recommended shortlist).
CAC Meeting
#4
September
10, 2009
Summary of Assimilative Capacity Study, treatment alternatives (shortlist evaluation), outfall and effluent sewer alternatives (short-list
evaluation), preparation for PIC #2.
CAC Meeting
#5
November 3,
2009
Overview of Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 38 for

sustainable development of Halton Region, summary of PIC #2,
responses to comments from PIC #2 (open-cut trench vs. tunnelling and
summary of ActiFlo technical memo), GO Station shaft site acquisition
status, prospective truck traffic and three shaft site locations, Class EA
recommendations, future Class EA activities.
Table 8.3 below outlines the concerns that were expressed by the CAC, and the responses to these concerns.
Table 8.3 CAC Concerns and Responses to Concerns
1.
2.
Comment/Concern
Impacts of truck
traffic during
construction
Odour controls
3.
Fulfillment of water
quality objectives
4.
Cost
Response
Estimated truck traffic volumes were calculated for the period of tunnelling
and construction of the shaft sites. Estimates were presented to the CAC at
Meeting #5.
Better odour control systems will be put into place to reduce odour but it is
difficult to guarantee that odour will not get worse than it is today. Strategies
and tactics employed by the Region to address odour control will be conveyed
clearly to members of the public.
Recommended design more that fulfills Provincial requirements, which
specify that the Provincial Water Quality Objectives need to be achieved at
least 50% of the time.
Cost of each alternative would be considered as a criterion in the evaluation
process.
8.1.7 Halton Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee

Committee (EEAC)
The project was presented to the Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee (EEAC), an Advisory
Committee to Halton Regional Council, on February 11, 2009. EEAC, which is made up of regional
councillors and citizens at large, advises Halton Region on the management and conservation of the natural
environment of Halton.
8.1.8 Public Comments Received

Comments received from agencies, interest groups and the public are included in the Comments section of
Appendix C9. Responses are found in Appendix C10. Table 8.4 below provides an outline of the comments
received and the action proposed to be taken, if any was warranted. These and other comments were
considered in developing the preferred approach to expand the Mid-Halton WWTP and to increase the
effluent sewer capacity.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 97
Table 8.4 Public Comments Received and Responses to Comments

Comment By
Residents of Study
Area
Comment/Question
Requested further information
and contact information for
members of the Citizens
Advisory Committee
Response
Were placed on direct notification list, and
provided with the names of Citizens
Advisory Committee members and contact
information for the Regional Councillors.
Asked about the current size of

the facility, and how backflow
issues would be considered in
the EA
Social and environmental
evaluation criteria should be
higher priorities than other
criteria;
Natural areas in brook valley
(assumed to be 14-Mile Creek)
should be avoided. A more
direct route is preferred;
Preference for tunnelling;
Provided with a copy of the Project Update,

and given contact information for Greg
Ellis, the Acting Manager for
Water/Wastewater System Operations.
Noted.
Minimize disruption to parks

and public areas;
No impact to lake water
quality, tunnel straight down
3rd Line;
Safety should be considered
(trucks and kids).
Proposed mitigation measures for

construction of shaft site at Coronation
Park.
Noted.
Resident near
Study Area and
Representative on
Lake Ontario
Shoreline Algae
Action Advisory
Committee
(LOSAAC)
Effluent should have no

impact on Lake Ontario
nearshore waters to avoid
increasing cladophora
growth;
Satisfactory disposal of
biosolids;
Minimize disruption to built
community from sewer
construction.
Proposed 2.1 km-long outfall offshore

will reduce total phosphorus loading TP
loading to the near shore, as compared to
loading from the existing combined
outfall;
Representative of
Veolia Water
Solutions and
Technologies
Canada
Asked why High Rate Clarifier

failed in long list screening due
to Performance/Capacity
criteria. Suggested that project
team review ActiFlo
technology, which could be
obtained through Veolia Water
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resident of Study
Area
Resident of Study
Area
Residents of Study
Area
Resident of Study
Area
6.
7.
8.
Page 98
Another effluent sewer routes was selected.
Tunnelling chosen as preferred design.
Noted.
No change proposed to the biosolids

management program for the plant;
Tunnelling construction recommended
for sewer to minimize disruption to
community.
A technical memo was produced to
provide additional documentation on the
evaluation of the Actiflo high rate
clarification process for primary
treatment.
Process occupies a smaller footprint but
this a not a major concern for the MidReport Ref# 250101
Solutions & Technologies

Canada Ltd
Resident outside
study area
Expressed dissatisfaction that

open-cut construction of the
new effluent sewer was
eliminated without sufficient
documentation of open-cut vs.
tunnel construction costs.
Further documentation was
requested
9.
10.
A comment was made

regarding whether lighting was
necessary on the plant site
throughout the night, as it
disturbs the nearby residential
area.
Halton WWTP;
Technology used extensively for
drinking water purification, but limited
applicability for primary clarification;
Increased operational cost for coagulants
and microsand for clarification, and
increased operating costs. Microsand in
the primary sludge would also increase
the maintenance requirements of the
sludge pumps;
System presents increased complexity in
instrumentation and controls that
conventional primary clarifiers, and
operators are already experienced and
trained in the operation of the system
currently used.
Discussed further in Section 5.4.4.
Two comments submitted at PIC #1
expressed a preference for tunnelling. An
additional two comments expressed
concern for maintaining natural areas and
minimizing disruption to the built
community.
Town of Oakville was firm on not
wanting a trench on Third Line or
Lakeshore Rd.
Conservation Halton prohibited
trenching along 14-Mile Creek.
The Citizens Advisory Committee
meeting expressed preference for
tunnelling vs. trenching.
Significant noise, vibration, dust and
socio-economic impacts associated with
open-cut.
Open-cut construction is more costly than
tunnel construction. Discussed further in
Section 4.3.4.
Night lighting would be reduced as much
as possible while still maintaining
security on the plant site.
8.1.9 Notice of Completion

The Notice of Project Completion, found in Appendix C4 will be issued in local newspapers to notify
stakeholders, residents, government agencies and other relevant parties of the completion of the project and
the availability of the Environmental Study Report (ESR) for public review for 30 days. The Notice of
Report Ref# 250101
Page 99
Completion was advertised in the Oakville Beaver local newspaper on April 1 and 8, 2010, and in the Halton
Compass and the Milton Champion local newspapers on April 2 and 9, 2010.
Direct mailing to all contacts on the project mailing list, including residents in the study area, community
groups, utilities, and Aboriginal/First Nations groups was also completed on April 12, 2010 to provide
notification of the completion of the project.
8.2 Agency Consultation P

Process
rocess
Consultation with review agencies is also essential to the communication component of the Class EA process.
Agencies were consulted in an effort to gain valuable feedback and guidelines on how to best proceed with
the project. Relevant agencies were notified of project commencement, completion, and PICs. Over the
course of the project, the project team met with parties representing various agencies that would be
stakeholders in the expansion of the Mid-Halton WWTP. The following sections summarize these meetings.
8.2.1 External Technical Advisory Committee (ExTAC)

The role of the External Technical Advisory Committee (ExTAC) was to provide technical input into existing
conditions and opportunities for the project, and to provide input into the alternatives and draft WWTP
design. Invitations were extended representatives of various concerned organizations, including Department
of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Ministry of Environment (MOE), Conservation Halton (CH), Ontario Clean
Water Agency (OCWA), Transport Canada (TC), Town of Milton, Town of Oakville and Halton Region.
DFO indicated that they would be represented by Conservation Halton on ExTAC. On June 25, 2009,
representatives of Conservation Halton, Ministry of the Environment, and Town of Milton, as well as
members of the project team met at the Halton Region Office at 1075 North Service Road, Oakville.
The decision-making process for determining the short-list of alternatives was presented to the ExTAC
committee, and the short list of alternatives for the North Pumping Station capacity expansion, treatment
methods, effluent sewer alignment and discharge locations were discussed. A summary of PIC #1 was also
presented. The agenda, minutes and presentation materials from this meeting can be found in Appendix C11.
The project team also met with representatives from the Town of Oakville on July 3, 2009 to present the long
list of alternatives for the effluent sewer route and the screening process to determine the short list of
alternatives. The Town of Oakville posed several questions about the nature of the project in an email sent on
September 9, 2009. The questions in this email were addressed in a response from Halton Region on
September 14, 2009.
A second ExTAC meeting was convened on January 27, 2010, with representatives from MOE, GO Transit,
Town of Milton, Town of Oakville, Ontario Water Works Research Consortium, Conservation Halton and the
project team in attendance. At this meeting, the recommended design concepts that would be presented in the
ESR were communicated. This included recommendations for the type of outfall, the routing and length of the
effluent sewer and outfall, and the location of shaft sites along the sewer route. The proposed method of
constructing the sewer and outfall, the assessment of the fish habitat around the outfall, and treatment
recommendations and expansions on the plant site were also presented.
A meeting was then convened on February 1, 2010 with the representatives from the Parks Department for the
Town of Oakville who were unable to attend the second ExTAC meeting. This meeting was held to present
the preferred alternatives for the effluent sewer route and for the shaft sites. The mitigation and restoration
measures for Coronation Park were also outlined. Property requirements were discussed and so was the
timeframe for construction. The minutes of this meeting can be found in Appendix C11.
Page 100
Report Ref# 250101
8.2.2 Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

MOE was contacted by letter dated January 19, 2009 as part of the issuing process for the Notice of
Commencement. MOE provided preliminary comments in a letter dated February 6, 2009. Both of these
letters can be found in Appendix C12.
The project team met with MOE on February 11, 2009 at the MOE Central Region Office. At this meeting,
the status of the Phase 3 Expansion was discussed, background information on the Phase 4 and 5 Expansion
was presented, and the proposed approaches to the Assimilative Capacity Study and evaluation of treatment
alternatives were outlined. The project team met with Shannon McNeill, Frederick Lam and Ted Belayneh
from MOE. The agenda, minutes and presentation materials from this meeting can be found in Appendix C12.
Further to this meeting, MOE provided the project team with a guideline document regarding coordination of
provincial and federal EAs (Appendix C12).
8.2.3 Conservation Halton (CH)

CH was contacted as part of the issuing process for the Notice of Commencement. They provided preliminary
comments in a letter dated March 10, 2009. This letter can be found in Appendix C13
After attending the ExTAC meeting on June 25, 2009 CH indicated that they would provide comments on the
design process. CH provided a letter to Halton Region dated August 10, 2009 listing concerns that CH would
have with the Mid-Halton WWTP Plant Expansion. This letter can be found in Appendix C13.
Subsequent to this letter, a meeting was arranged with CH on September 30, 2009 at the Halton Regional
Office on North Service Road, Oakville. At this meeting, the results of the ACS were outlined, a review of the
evaluation of alternatives for the effluent sewer and outfall, mitigation measures at the Coronation Park shaft
site, a brief review of the evaluation of treatment alternatives and the recommended approaches. The concerns
brought forth in the letter from CH were addressed, and the Burloak Intake study was presented to give an
idea of the possible lakebed conditions that might exist in the outfall area. Aquatic environmental
investigations that had been completed or that might be needed were discussed. The agenda, minutes and
presentation material from this meeting can be found in Appendix C13. After the meeting, CH was sent a
formal written response to their concerns, in reflection of what had been discussed at the meeting. This letter,
dated October 13, 2009 can be found in Appendix C13. After the second ExTAC meeting CH also provided a
copy of Ontario Regulation 162/06 outlining the requirements for development in areas regulated by the
conservation authority.
The concerns of CH and the responses to these concerns are itemized in Table 8.5 as follows:
Report Ref# 250101
Page 101
Table 8.5 CH Concerns and Responses to Concerns

Item
Concern
Response
#
1
Requested to be provided with explanations of Materials from the PICs (including
acronyms.
Glossary of Terms) are posted on the
project webpage.
2
Requested a description of the short-list alternative A detailed table of treatment
technologies, and a comparison with respect to cost and alternatives, criteria, and evaluations is
water quality parameters.
posted on the project webpage. The
Assimilative Capacity Study shows that
all PWQO would be fulfilled.
3
Requested technical details of the proposed WWTP Footprint of facility would be sent to
expansion footprint and any potential groundwater CH. No major impact on groundwater
impacts
expected, but impacts of past expansion
projects would be researched.
4
Requested details on the length and diameter of the Outfall sewer will be 1800 m and
pipe to be laid on lake bed, and the depth of water in diffuser will be 300 m in length.
which the outlet will be located. CH also requested Diffuser pipe will be between 1.2 m
information about the fish habitat conditions in the and 2.4 m in diameter. Trench is not
vicinity of the pipe for each of the alternatives.
expected to be more than 10m across.
Side slope of excavation would depend
on the material at the lake bottom. Grab
samples would be taken to determine
fish habitat, and further discussion is
needed with DFO.
5
Asked whether there would be physical changes to the No disturbance to the shoreline is
Lake Ontario shoreline.
anticipated.
6
Asked whether groundwater takings or pumping during Project team would look into it, but no
or after construction of the expanded facility would be intention to intake groundwater or
required.
surface water.
7
Asked what pre- and post-construction monitoring for Role of WWTPs is only to monitor the
water quality changes in Lake Ontario would be quality of effluent from the plant, not
proposed.
the quality of Lake Ontario.
8
Asked to be provided with a detailed description of fish
habitat and fish community in the lake where new or
Questions deferred for after meeting
expanded effluent pipe is proposed.
with DFO. If field work is
9
Asked how the WWTP, proposed effluent discharge
recommended by DFO, it would be
pipe, and potential shoreline changes would impact
arranged immediately.
existing water quality, fish habitat and fish
communities.
10
Asked for explanation of whether the expanded WWTP
No action from the project team as
would reduce levels of pharmaceuticals discharged to
Halton Region is only required to meet
Lake Ontario in the effluent. Recommended advanced
MOE WQ requirements.
oxidation processing as part of upgrades.
11
Asked for explanation of the effect of expansion of Proposed 2.1 km-long outfall offshore
WWTP on algae blooms on the Lake Ontario will cut almost 2/3 of TP loading to the
waterfront in the Town of Oakville.
near shore through the existing
combined outfall.
Page 102
Report Ref# 250101
Conservation Halton requested that a topographic survey be completed at Coronation Park in order to identify
any flooding hazards. It has been concluded that the topographic survey would be provided in the detailed
design phase of the project, However, it was also noted that preliminary information on ground elevation
indicates that the proposed shaft site would be located at the high end of the park.
The draft Environmental Study Report was sent to Conservation Halton on March 2 and March 3, 2010 for
their review and comments. A letter containing comments was received from Conservation Halton on April 1,
2010. Conservation Haltons comments were considered and incorporated into the Environmental Study
Report, and a response letter to Conservation Haltons comments was sent on April 9, 2010. This
documentation can be found in Appendix C13.
8.2.4 Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Initially, when DFO was contacted regarding the project commencement, it was indicated that their interests
would be represented in this project by CH. However, CH later recommended that DFO be included in the
project because of fish habitat concerns. DFO provided the project team with a list of general DFO
requirements (see Appendix C14). The project team met with DFO on November 3, 2009 at the DFO office
on Harvester Road, Burlington. The purpose of this meeting was to outline the design and evaluation process
for the project, and to obtain input from DFO on the subsequent steps that should be taken in the natural
environment and aquatic habitat impact assessment. The agenda, minutes and presentation material from this
meeting can be found in Appendix C14.
DFO asked the project team to identify the likely impact of the diffuser on the lake bed and fish habitat,
expressing concern about whether the lake bed could be restored to its original condition after the installation
of the pipe. Further investigative work was performed to determine the material at the lakebed where the
diffuser would be constructed. Grab samples were taken from the lake bed for a natural heritage assessment to
determine the lake bed material and to identify the presence of zebra mussels. It was determined that
substrates in the vicinity of the proposed diffuser section are in about 2830 m of water and are
predominantly silt (depths of about 10 cm) underlain by shale bedrock. There are no zebra mussels present in
diffuser area. The fish habitat in this area is primarily used for migration and limited foraging, and no
spawning or nursery habitat is present. Because the tunnelled construction method would not involve laying
the pipe on the lakebed surface, it would not be necessary to provide surface protection for the diffuser
section. Assuming tunnelled construction is used, the total lakebed area affected by diffuser was estimated to
be approximately 5.4m2. A such, the conclusion of the fish habitat assessment was that because a tunnelled
diffuser represents low risk to fish and fish habitat, no fish habitat compensation would be necessary. The
technical memorandum conveying the results of this investigation can be found in Appendix B7, along with
the covering letter that was provided to DFO. After the submission of this technical memorandum, DFO
clarified that the recommendation that fish habitat mitigation would not be necessary should be revised to
recommend that compensation would not be necessary. It was noted that all low-risk projects require
mitigation measures, and that project that propose a high risk to fish habitat are required to provide additional
compensation. DFO also provided confirmation that the HADD (harmful alteration disruption or destruction)
model would not be needed, however a Navigable Waters Protection Act application should be completed
with Transportation Canada.
A letter was received from DFO on February 25, 2010 which stated DFOs conclusion that the project was
not likely to result in impacts to fish and fish habitat, provided that additional mitigation measures were
incorporated to reduce impact on fish and fish habitat. A formal approval from DFO would not be needed in
order to proceed with the work. All documentation of correspondence with DFO is included in Appendix
C14.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 103
8.2.5 GO Transit/Metrolinx
One of the preferred locations for a shaft site was determined to be on Speers Road, south of Bronte Station.
As such, the Halton Property team formally requested GO Transit to make that site available. GO Transit had
instead proposed a modified, smaller shaft site, found in Appendix C15. A meeting was convened with GO
Transit/Metrolinx on January 12, 2010 in order to discuss the status of the land where the shaft site to be built.
The shaft site requirements, timeline for construction and construction impacts were discussed, and it was
concluded from the meeting that GO Transit staff would provide the project team with plans outlining future
development at that site. The minutes of this meeting can be found in Appendix C15.
8.2.6 Union Gas

Union Gas was contacted to determine whether the project would be in conflict with any Union Gas facilities.
A letter was received from Union Gas on December 10, 2009 providing information on the locations of gas
plants in the study area. It was outlined in this letter that Union has no plans to upgrade or relocate their mains
at this time, and it was recommended that field locates be completed prior to determining whether our gas
main may be in conflict with your planned work. The letter from Union Gas and the locations of gas plants
can be found in Appendix C16.
8.2.7 Hydro One

Hydro One was notified of the commencement of the project. Records of communications can be found in
Appendix C17. Hydro One provided a letter response on April 30, 2009, outlining that there are transmission
facilities located in the immediate vicinity of the study area. As such, it was outlined that any construction
activities must maintain the electrical clearance from the transmission line conductors, and the integrity of the
structure foundations must be maintained at all times, with no disturbance of the earth around the poles, guy
wires and tower footings. Also, there must not be any grading, excavating, filling or other civil work close to
the structures. It was noted, however, that existing rights of ways may have provisions for future lines or
already contain secondary land uses (i.e. pipelines, water mains, parking, etc).
Hydro One was contacted again on November 13, 2009, and was provided with a map and profile of the
recommended effluent tunnel alignment. Comments on this route were requested regarding any conflicts with
Hydro One transmission lines. A response was received on December 10, 2009 outlining that there are no
Hydro One facilities along the proposed route.
8.2.8 CN Rail
CN was contacted as notification of the undertaking. CN provided a response on February 2, 2009 outlining
that an agreement would need to be executed with CN for installation/replacement/modification to utilities.
CN also noted on June 26, 2009 that the project could have a potential impact on CN Rail property, and
requested that they be kept aware of the progress on this project. CN noted that they would not be able to
provide a response as to whether the proposed construction would interfere with CN rail lines until contract
drawings and a geotechnical report had been provided to them. The project team responded that these
materials would be prepared at the end of the Detailed Design phase, and would be provided to CN once
ready. This correspondence is included in the CN Rail section of Appendix C18.
8.2.9 Ontario Realty Corporation

Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) was contacted as notification of the undertaking. ORC provided a letter of
response, cautioning that the study area of the project may overlap with ORC- or Hydro One-managed
property. The project team then provided a letter to ORC outlining the consultative process with the Town of
Page 104
Report Ref# 250101
Oakville and Go Transit to identify any conflicting land holdings, as well as correspondence with Ontario
Hydro indicating that the study area is not in conflict with Ontario Hydro land. ORC provided
acknowledgement of the receipt of this letter. This correspondence can be found in Appendix C19.
8.2.10 Transportation Canada

Transportation Canada was contacted on the recommendation of DFO, to determine whether it would be
necessary submit an application under the Navigable Water Protection Act. After further correspondence,
Transportation Canada indicated that this application would only need to be submitted at the time of the
detailed design. This correspondence is included in the Transport Canada section of Appendix C20.
8.2.11 Ministry of Natural Resources

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources was contacted in order to determine whether acquisition of a
crown easement (waterlot) would be necessary for the occupation of the lakebed. A letter was received from
the Ministry of Natural Resources on February 4, 2010 outlining the requirement for a crown easement as
well as a work permit to carry out the construction and installation of the effluent outfall pipe and diffuser.
This correspondence can be found in Appendix C21.
Based on a recommendation from DFO that construction should not take place between the months of April
and June, an email was sent to the Ministry of Natural Resources on April 1, 2010. This email provided
documentation of the consultative process with DFO and Conservation Halton, and served to appeal the
limitation on construction timing based on previous indications that the construction of the effluent outfall
would have a negligible impact on the aquatic habitat in Lake Ontario.
8.3 First Nations, Aboriginal

Aboriginal & Mtis Consultation
First Nations, Aboriginal and Mtis communities were consulted to build meaningful dialogue with First
Nations and Aboriginal communities and government agencies, and to ensure that the legislated duty to
consult is satisfied through this Municipal Class EA consultation process.
The main phases of First Nation consultation involved:
Development of the list of First Nations to the contacted: The list was prepared based Study Teams
knowledge of the Region and expertise working with First Nation with presence, interest or historical
connections in the Region. The preliminary list was completed with information from INAC and from the
Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal Affairs (Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs).
Mail-out of initial contact letter: A letter signed by Mr. Mickey Liu, Halton Region Project Manager was
sent on November 19, 2009 informing First Nations of the Study. Additionally, this letter informed First
Nations how they could get involved in the EA process. It invited communication via phone, regular mail
and/or email and encouraged the First Nation community to attend the PICs.
Follow-up phone calls: Two weeks after sending the initial letter, follow-up phone calls were made to
solicit feedback, input and to discuss with First Nation leaders any concerns they might have in regards to
the Study.
First Nations, aboriginal organizations and legal representatives were invited to attend the two PICs.
Letters were sent on May 5th, 2009 (PIC #1) and on September 28, 2009 (PIC#2). Notices of the PICs
were sent to representatives of the relevant First Nation, Aboriginal, and Metis communities. They are
listed as follows:

Chief James R. Marsden, Alderville First Nation

Chief Donna Big Canoe, Chippewas of Georgina Island
Report Ref# 250101
Page 105

Chief Sharon Stinson-Henry, Chippewas of Rama First Nation

Chief Keith Knott, Curve Lake First Nation
Chief Laurie Carr, Hiawatha First Nation
Grand Chief Konrad Sioui, Huron-Wendat First Nation
Chief Chris Nahrgang, Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation
Chief Tracy Gauthier, Mississaugas of Scugog Island
Chief Bryan LaForme, Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation
Chief R. Donald Maracle, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte
Grand Chief Stan Beardy, Nishnawbe Aski Nation
Chief William L. Montour, Six Nations of the Grand River Territory
Grand Chief Randall Phillips, Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians
Lori Jacobs, Chiefs of Ontario
Don Boswell, Specific Claims Branch
Franklin Roy, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Louise Trepanier, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Grand Chief Diane M. Kelly, Office of the Ogichidaakwe
Lyndia Jones, Independent First Nations
Betsy Mandamin, Independent First Nations
Diane Maracle-Nadjiwon, Independent First Nations
Bob McLean, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Glenn Gilbert, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Shawn Green, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Paul Heighington, Mtis Nation of Ontario
Bob Waldon, Mtis Nation of Ontario
Karole Dumont-Beckett, Mtis Nation of Ontario
Kosar Richelle, Ministry of the Aboriginal Affairs
Pam Wheaton, Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal Affairs
Francois Lachance, Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal Affairs
Chief Angus Toulouse, Ontario Regional Chief
Grand Council Chief Beaucage, Nipissing First Nation
Allan Dokis, Union of Ontario Indians Grand Council
Lori Jacobs, United Anishnaabeg Councils
Councillor Luc Lain, Huron-Wendat First Nation
Hank Rowlinson, Mtis Nation of Ontario
Phone calls were made on April 6, 2010 in order to communicate that the Notice of Completion letter
would be mailed shortly, and that the letter would indicate where the ESR could be reviewed as well as
contact information of the Halton Region Project Manager, Mr. Mickey Liu.
Mail-out of Notice of Completion letter: A letter signed by Mr. Mickey Liu, Halton Region Project
Manager was sent on April 12, 2010 to provide notification of the completion of the Study. Additionally,
this letter provided information on where the ESR could be reviewed, and how the Project Manager could
be contacted.
All contact established with First Nations, including phone calls, are presented in the First Nations Issues
Tracking Matrix and the Record of Contact with First Nations, Aboriginal and Mtis. The Issues Tracking
Matrix and Record of Contact can be found in Appendix C22, along with the project contact lists that were
utilized at each stage of the study.
Page 106
Report Ref# 250101
9 Review of Possible CEAA Triggers for Recommended Solution

and Preferred Design
As indicated in Section 1.3.1 of the ESR, there were a number of potential CEAA triggers that Municipal
projects may be subject to. A review of the 10 potential CEAA triggers discussed in Section 1.3.1 indicated
that only the following had any potential relevance with this project. Those potential triggers were 2) The
project is being undertaken on federal land; 3) The project could affect facilities for the transmission of oil or
gas; 4) The project is likely to affect the operation of a railway company or property; 5) The project could
involve temporary storage of explosives on site; 7) The project is likely to affect fish or fish habitat and 8)
The project is likely to affect the navigability of a water body.
With respect to the above possible CEAA triggers for this project, the potential triggers are shown in bold
italics and the discussion of possible applicability to this project are as follows:
2) The project is being undertaken on federal land the federal land involved in this project is the CN right
of way. Although the proposed effluent sewer tunnel crosses the CN right of way, the rail authority has
indicated that this tunnel crossing would not be considered a CEAA trigger for this project.
3) The project could affect facilities for the transmission of oil or gas the existence of pipelines in this area
was investigated with Union Gas and no construction work will occur adjacent to high pressure gas pipes,
which would be a potential CEAA trigger.
4) The project is likely to affect the operation of a railway company or property the CN rail authority has
been contacted and it is being confirmed that the proposed tunnel would not affect the operation of the
railway company or property.
5) The project could involve temporary storage of explosives on site since the project effluent sewer
component is to be constructed via tunnelling rather than open cut and since rock excavation in the tunnel
shafts is expected to be accomplished using hoe ram equipment, it is not expected that explosives will be
required for construction activities. It is therefore not anticipated that there would be a need for temporary
storage of explosives on site.
7) The project is likely to affect fish or fish habitat the only component of this project that has the potential
to affect fish habitat is the effluent diffuser section of the outfall sewer. The diffuser section is expected to be
constructed on the bottom of Lake Ontario in a depth of water ranging 28 to 30m and approximately from
1,800 to 2,100m offshore. A natural habitat investigation was conducted during the course of this project and
it was determined that the bottom characteristics in this area of the lake are not viable fish habitat and as a
result it is expected that there would be no adverse impact on existing fish habitat. A submission was made to
DFO regarding this issue and a letter was received to confirm that the project is not likely to result in impacts
to fish and fish habitat, provided that additional mitigation measures are incorporated to reduce impact on fish
and fish habitat.
8) The project is likely to affect the navigability of a water body Transport Canada has been consulted
regarding the project and they are aware of the proposed area in Lake Ontario in which the effluent diffuser
section would be constructed. A depth of water in this area ranges from 28 to 30 m and as a result there is no
anticipated impact on navigation in Lake Ontario as a result. The only concern relates to the possibility of
dragging anchors damaging the effluent diffuser and to avoid such damage it is recommended that the
location of the effluent sewer be marked with a no anchoring buoys to comply with Transport Canada
requirements. Notice to Mariners should also be issued prior to and during the construction phases of the
project to alert commercial and recreational vessel activities in this area to the proposed construction
activities. An application under the Navigable Water Protection Act would have to be submitted to Transport
Canada, but this would only be required in the detailed design phase.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 107
As a result of the above review of potential CEAA triggers, it has been determined that there are no Federal
EA triggers resulting from the proposed undertakings required for this project.
10 Proposed Undertaking
The following section summarizes the preferred design, implementation cost and schedule, and the impacts
and mitigation measures.
10.1 Description of Preferred Design

The figure below depicts a perspective view of the plant site with the proposed facility expansions.
Figure 10.1 Perspective View of Plant Site Showing Existing and Proposed Facilities
The recommended design approach for the plant components was determined to be as follows:
North Pumping Station a physical expansion of the facility will be required including a building
extension to the west of the existing structure, expanded wet well, upgrading of existing pumps and
provision of additional pumps, odour control and new forcemains.
Preliminary treatment a screening building extension, additional screen channels and screens and
replacement of existing screens. Review capacity of existing odour control facilities and expand as
necessary.
Grit removal expand the existing facility, including two additional detritor tanks. The proposed tankage
would be structurally designed to allow for addition of tank covers in future, if deemed necessary.
Primary treatment construct 4 new primary clarifiers. The proposed tankage would be structurally
Secondary treatment provide 4 additional aeration tanks and additional blower capacity in a new blower
building. Provide 6 new secondary clarifiers.
Page 108
Report Ref# 250101
Biosolids handling/treatment provide a new anaerobic digester adjacent to the existing digesters and,
within the existing biosolids building, provide a new rotary drum thickener and a new dewatering
centrifuge.
Disinfection provide a new building, including ultraviolet disinfection facilities.
The proposed alternative for the effluent sewer route and shaft sites is shown in Figure 4.10 of Section 4.3.6,
and it is recommended that a tunnelling approach should be used for construction.
10.2 Capital Cost of Preferred Design

Initial Master Plan estimates for this project identified a total cost of $149M as presented in the 2010 Budget
& Business Plan (ID# 5734, 3808, 5945). As part of this Class EA process and the investigations that have
been undertaken, the cost estimates have been refined such that the budget requirements, in terms of 2010
dollars, for the WWTP expansion and effluent sewer upgrades are estimated to be $99 M for the plant and
$70 M for the effluent sewer, plus GST. These budget estimates include an allowance of 35% for engineering
and contingencies. If it is decided to provide a bulkhead and access shaft into the marine section of the
effluent sewer tunnel near the diffuser section for future diver access, an additional budget of $2.16 M should
be provided.
10.3 Project Implementation Schedule

The following schedule is being provided as an indication of the expected timeframe for completion of the
subsequent project implementation phases for design and construction.
It is assumed that the ESR public review period will be completed by May 2010 and that the preliminary
design phase could get underway by June 2010. There is a requirement to relocate two existing sewage
forcemains from the Third Line Pumping Station that cross the area of the site where this proposed plant
construction will take place. In the interest of providing the plant expansion as soon as possible, it may be
advisable to design and award a site preparation contract in advance of the main plant contract to relocate
these forcemains and to do any other site preparation work that may be necessary.
The following timing requirements relate to the plant design and construction only since the effluent tunnel
design and construction schedule would be a shorter time duration than the plant.
Activity
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Tendering/Approvals
Construction
Total
Time Requirement
8 months
6 months
2 months
24 months
40 months
This schedule indicates that the plant could not be commissioned until the fourth quarter of 2013.
10.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

10.4.1 General
Socio-economic impacts will be minimized through the use of tunnelling, rather than open-cut construction
technique to create the effluent sewer. A Stage 2 archaeological assessment is recommended for the proposed
shaft site in Coronation Park and for three undisturbed locations in the Mid-Halton plant site to identify and
Report Ref# 250101
Page 109
provide the opportunity to conserve any historical artefacts. During the design process, mitigation measures
will be identified to ensure protection of the three cultural heritage resources identified in section 3.3.4.
10.4.2 Noise and Vibration

Effluent Sewer & Outfall
Excavation of the temporary and permanent access shafts for the new effluent sewer & outfall will generate a
moderate amount of noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of each shaft, for a period of approximately
2 months.
Once construction switches to tunnelling operations, noise at the surface will be minor, associated with
additional truck journeys on adjacent roads. No discernable vibration impacts are anticipated from tunnelling
because tunnelling will be at significant depth however further geotechnical assessment will be undertaken to
determine potential vibration impacts.
Mitigation measures that will be implemented include:
Aesthetically pleasing, solid site hoarding to dissipate noise levels at adjacent residential properties;
No use of explosives;
Truck movements will be limited to weekdays from 7 am to 7 pm, in accordance with the Town of
Oakville By-law. Occasional movements may be required for maintenance activities on Saturdays
working to the Towns By-law;
Preconstruction surveys will be undertaken of buildings in close proximity to sites generating

vibration during construction;
Use of Oakville Hydro electricity supply and avoidance of portable power generators wherever
practical;
On completion, the effluent sewer and outfall will generate no additional noise.
Construction operations and trucking for the expansion of the Mid-Halton plant will generate some additional
noise in the local area; comparable to that generated by Phase III expansion. Noise impacts from the Phase III
construction have been well managed and there have been no complaints from for adjacent residents and
businesses.
During commissioning of the expansion and subsequent operations, the level of noise generated by operating
the plant will increase slightly. Construction hours will be limited in accordance with Town of Oakville
requirements to minimize impact on neighbouring residents and businesses. Impacts during plant operation
will be minimized by noise attenuating building features and enclosure of potential significant noise
producing equipment, such as motors and blowers.
10.4.3 Site Traffic

Effluent Sewer & Outfall
Construction activity at the main tunnelling shaft, will generate approximately 11 additional in & out truck
movements per weekday over a 23-30 month period. For the Coronation Park tunnelling shaft, this would
increase truck movements on Lakeshore Road West by 9% and on the lower section of Third Line by 8%,
based on Town of Oakville traffic counts.
Mitigation measures will include:
Page 110
Report Ref# 250101
Restricting truck movements to weekdays between 7 am & 7 pm, in accordance with the Town of
Oakville By-law, with occasional movements, for maintenance activities, on Saturdays working to the
Towns By-law. Trucking during rush hours from shaft sites will be controlled by restricting spoil
trucking from shaft sites to non rush hour periods.
Wheel washing, to reduce road surface contamination;
Installation of temporary traffic signals at the junction of Woodhaven Park Drive / Lakeshore Road
West / Site Access Road junction;
Signage for potential detour routes will be erected well in advance of detours to allow road users to
make alternative arrangements;

The plants location on North Service Road West enables truck and car traffic to access the site while
avoiding residential areas.
Plant construction is expected to generate approximately the same level of truck and car traffic as the Phase
III construction which had minimal impact on existing North Service Road West road users.
10.4.4 Dust
Typical construction site control measures will be implemented to minimize airborne dust and transferring
dust/dirt from haul routes by trucking activities. Water trucks will be on site regularly to suppress dust caused
by construction activities. Dust will also be controlled off-site through the use of silt screens and other
devices. Residents and businesses will be informed early about the extent and nature of the likely dust
impacts during construction.
10.4.5 Waste Management

All waste materials from operation of the expanded plant, such as screenings and grit, will be disposed offsite in accordance with applicable legislation and guidelines, continuing current practice.
Construction waste will be separated into recyclables in compliance with Halton Regions policies on waste
disposal.
10.4.6 Odour Control

Additional control measures will be implemented at the treatment plant during the Phase IV and V expansion,
including odour control for the North Pumping Station Expansion; assessment of existing odour control
capacity in the inlet works building and expansion of odour control system, if needed; structural design of
detritor and primary clarifier tanks such that covering of these tanks in future could be implemented for odour
control, if deemed necessary.
10.4.7 Receiving Water Quality

The impact on surface water quality from the expansion of the Mid-Halton wastewater treatment plant
expansion was extensively investigated, and four features of particular importance were considered:
Fulfillment of Provincial Water Quality Objectives;

Impact on 14 Mile Creek and fulfillment of conservation authority requirements;
Handling of water intrusion into the effluent sewer tunnel during construction; and
Stormwater management on the plant site.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 111
It was concluded that the plant expansion would have minimal impact on surface water quality. Any
anticipated impacts would be counteracted with proposed mitigation measures as discussed below.
In order to fulfill Provincial Water Quality Objectives, an Assimilative Capacity Study (ACS) was undertaken
to investigate the impact of the discharged treated effluent on water quality in Lake Ontario. The diffuser to
be constructed at the end of the outfall will ensure mixing of the effluent into the ambient water, thus reducing
the environmental impact. Based on water quality modelling using various outfall and diffuser lengths, it was
concluded that an outfall constructed 1800 m offshore with an additional 300 m long diffuser would be able to
meet PWQOs for both near-field and far-field mixing zones. It is to be noted that this includes the objectives
for un-ionized ammonia as well as total phosphorus. Limits set by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
would also be met at the Oakville and Burloak Water Supply Plant intakes. The ACS is discussed in more
detail in Section 3.2 of this ESR.
The initially preferred route for the new effluent tunnel alignment did not pass through the 14 Mile Creek
valley. This was because of the sensitivity of this valley, as indicated by Conservation Halton. During a
constructability review with a tunnelling contractor regarding the effluent sewer route configuration another,
more direct, alignment alternative was identified. This alternative would pass below 14 Mile Creek and
through a portion of the valley, but because this effluent sewer alternative would be tunnelled in shale far
below creek level, it was inferred that the construction of the sewer would not impact surface water quality or
quantity of the creek. Still, this tunnel alignment would fall within the Conservation Regulation Limits for 14
Mile Creek, so it will be necessary to carry out additional geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations to
ensure that water quality and quantity of the creek will not be impacted if this alignment alternative is to be
utilized. Any hydrogeological work and appropriate mitigation pertaining to the temporary and long-term
impacts associated with groundwater runoff/intrusion will be completed during the detailed design phase.
During the construction of the effluent tunnel, some water intrusion will take place into the tunnel and this
water will flow to the shaft sites for removal. Typically such water would be treated in sedimentation basins
and discharged to surface water, but because the shale spoil would make the water very turbid and difficult to
treat to a level of turbidity acceptable for surface water discharge it is recommended that this water instead be
pumped to the sanitary sewer system. Sanitary sewers are in close proximity to all shaft sites, so this
mitigation measure would be readily available to avoid surface water quality impacts from this source. The
need for a Permit to take Water (PTTW) will be assessed, and hydrogeological work undertaken if necessary
to obtain the data required for a PTTW application.
The final component of surface water quality that was examined was stormwater management on the plant
site. There is a stormwater detention pond at the north end of the plant site, between the Biosolids building
and the North Pumping Station. The purpose of this pond is to smooth the flow hydrograph for rainfall events
and to remove sediment from the runoff. South of the headworks on the plant site, stormwater is collected into
swales and is conveyed into the Towns stormwater sewers at North Service Road. For the plant expansion,
new open tanks will be built at the south end of the plant site. These will reduce the overall stormwater runoff
from the site through inclusion of rainwater in the treatment process and effluent, thus reducing runoff load to
the existing stormwater network The detailed design process will detail revised drainage swales and inlets as
the plant is further developed. Level 1 (enhanced) stormwater quality control will be incorporated as defined
in the Ministry of the Environment Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual 2003.
Based on analysis of the four main components of surface water quality related to the expansion of the MidHalton WWTP, it was concluded that there would be minimal impact on the quality of surface water bodies in
the area, and that any minor impact on surface water quality could be readily mitigated.
Page 112
Report Ref# 250101
10.4.8 Buffer Distance from Community

As a result of a letter from Halton Region to MOE providing a copy of the Notice of Commencement for this
project, the Ministry of the Environment provided a response on February 6, 2009 which included MOE
Technical Support Sections comments on the proposed undertaking.
The MOE letter recommended referring to MOE D-Series Guidelines Land Use Compatibility to ensure
that all applicable Ministry procedures are followed while planning for any infrastructure or facilities relating
to wastewater, pipelines, landfills or industrial uses. Guidelines D-2 of the D-Series Guidelines deals with
compatibility between sewage treatment and sensitive land use. The requirements of this guideline are also
incorporated into the MOE Design Guideline for sewage works 2008. In Section 4.5 of this MOE guideline,
the minimum separation distance between sewage works and sensitive land use is discussed. Section 4.5.3 of
this guideline suggests a separation distance of greater than 150 m for plants with rated capacities equal to or
greater than 25 ML/d. Following the Phase IV & V Expansion of the Mid-Halton plant, the capacity will be
125 ML/d. The following is extracted from the MOE Guideline:
4.5.3 STPs with Rated Capacity Equal to or Greater than 25,000 m3/d (6.6 mUSgd). The
recommended separation distance should be greater than 150 m (490 ft) and determined
on a case-by-case basis. The determination of the required distance will depend on
factors such as the type of treatment process, type of noise or odour control measures
being applied, existing municipal zoning and availability of land.
The Mid-Halton WWTP currently has the largest buffer distance between off-site sensitive land uses and
plant facilities with the potential to generate odours of any of the Region of Haltons sewage treatment plants.
The existing North Pumping Station is currently the plant facility that is closest to residential development.
That facility is approximately 280 m from the residential development to the north-east of the plant site. This
pumping station is planned to be expanded as part of the Phase IV and V WWTP Expansion by constructing a
physical expansion of that facility to the west. It is also planned to incorporate odour control measures as part
of that pumping station expansion. This planned pumping station expansion will therefore not decrease the
existing separation distance and the odour control measures proposed will lessen the potential off-site odour
impacts of this facility.
The next closest proposed treatment facilities as part of the Phase IV and V WWTP expansion are the
additional primary clarifiers. These primary clarifiers will be approximately 300 m from the existing
residential development to the north-east of the plant site. A new grit detritor tank is also proposed but this
tank will be > 300 m from the existing residential development to the north-east of the plant site. Although no
odour control measures are proposed for the primary clarifiers and detritor tank for this proposed expansion, it
is recommended that the structural design of the tankage for these facilities should be such that covers could
be provided in future if ever deemed necessary for odour control.
Even following this planned Phase 4 and 5 WWTP Expansion phases, the separation distances from the
pumping station and plant processes with the potential to emit odours will therefore be well in excess of the
MOE recommended minimum separation distance of 150 m.
10.4.9 Community Impacts

To mitigate community effects due to the construction at the plant and shaft sites, the Region will continue to
communicate with residents during the construction and implementation phase of the project. In addition, the
following mitigation strategies will be implemented:
Report Ref# 250101
Page 113
Installation of aesthetically pleasing noise barriers (hoarding) for shaft sites
Idling equipment will be shut off
Wherever possible, motors will be equipped with mufflers
Silt fences, straw bales, and any other protective measures will be installed where necessary
Wheels of all equipment that will be traveling on roads and be stored on private/public property will be
washed
If necessary, fencing, monitoring cameras and lighting for safety will be installed
The construction site will be kept clean at all times and waste will not be burned or buried on-site under
any circumstance
Potential hazards will be fenced off and adequately marked to prevent public access to dangerous areas
Construction traffic activities will be restricted to the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm during the week and to
the hours of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays. Construction activities will not take place on Sundays
without the express approval of the Town of Oakville. We anticipate seeking approval from the Town of
Oakville for tunnelling activity to proceed 24 hours per day as most of this activity is below ground.
Nighttime activity at the surface would be limited to work within the site hoarding mainly removing and
temporarily storing spoil from the excavated tunnel.
Exterior lighting will be designed to minimized off-site impacts.
Pedestrian and vehicle circulation patterns will be maintained to the greatest extent possible throughout
the construction and implementation phase.
Access to recreational areas (e.g., Sir John Colborne Park and Coronation Park) will be maintained to the
greatest extent possible.
All machinery will be in good working condition and be equipped with noise suppression devices to
minimize the amount of noise pollution generated by construction activities.
Backhoes and material trucks will be equipped with rubber tires whenever possible to reduce the overall
footprint of the equipment.
Existing electrical power sources will be used wherever possible, and silencing will be employed on
portable power generators to conform with Town of Oakville and Region of Halton zoning requirements.
Idling time will be minimized for trucks that are involved with construction operations in order to save
fuel and to reduce emissions.
Signage will be erected on affected roads notifying area residents, businesses and tourists of traffic
detours and alternative routes. Signs will be erected well in advance of detours occurring to allow
residents, businesses and tourists to make alternative arrangements.
Page 114
Report Ref# 250101
Printed notices (e.g., newsletters) will be prepared and distributed to area residents and local businesses
on a regular basis throughout the construction process. Notices will include updated schedules, progress
reports and descriptions outlining any changes to the original scope of activity. Residents and business
owners will be notified of any delays or changes that may arise as construction progresses.
All signage, equipment, tools, barricades, materials and debris will be removed from the worksite
immediately upon completion of the construction activities. The worksite will be free and clear of all
construction gear when the servicing improvements have been completed.
Every effort will be made to restore private lands to their pre-construction state as soon as possible once
the construction activities have ceased. Every effort will be made to improve the natural environment by
removing invasive species and replacing them with indigenous ones.
Follow-up site visits will be undertaken to ensure landscaping restoration efforts are successful.
Additional field work will be undertaken to replace trees, plants and other vegetation that fail to survive
the following season. It is recommended that a tree preservation plan should be incorporated in the
design/construction phase to protect mature trees that lie outside of the main construction footprint at any
of the construction sites.
Coronation Park
The following specific mitigation measures are proposed to maintain access and usage of Coronation Park
while a small area is in use for the tunnelling shaft site:
Coronation Park parking lot and waterfront trail will be maintained for public use during construction
period.
Construction trades would not be allowed to occupy waterfront trail or parking lots. Possible use of the
Oakville Southwest WWTP parking lot will be investigated, otherwise contractor will be made
responsible for finding parking off-site and shuttling construction workers to the shaft site.
No visible infrastructure will be left at grade following construction.
Park will be restored and possibly enhanced as compensation for construction access (will be investigated
and discussed with Town of Oakville during detailed design). Improved habitat conditions for migratory
birds passing through Coronation Park will also be discussed with Town of Oakville and Conservation
Halton at this time;
A tree preservation plan should be incorporated in design/construction phase to protect nearby mature
trees.
To avoid impacts to the shaft site as a result of waves during storm events in Lake Ontario, the shaft site
hoarding may require protection.
10.4.10 Ecosystem Protection

Ecosystem protection can be divided into erosion control, setback from watercourses and protection of
lakebed fish habitat. These three areas are addressed below in terms of impact of the proposed undertaking
and related mitigation measures.
10.4.10.1 Erosion Control

Standard erosion and sediment control measures have been proposed to minimize impacts from surface water
runoff. Silt/sediment control fencing, straw bales, catchbasin sediment barriers, rock check dams, and
Report Ref# 250101
Page 115
temporary soil stabilization of bare soil areas will be installed where necessary. Prior to construction,
appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will be confirmed with Conservation Halton staff.
At the Mid-Halton Plant, Level 1 (enhanced) stormwater treatment measures will be provided to protect
Species at Risk fish in Fourteen Mile Creek.
10.4.10.2 SetSet-back from

from Watercourses
The Conservation Halton regulated area extends into the Mid-Halton plant site because of a number of
riparian wetland features located within the 14 Mile Creek valley that form part of the 14 Mile Creek Valley
and Extension ESA (ESA # 12) identified in the Region of Haltons Natural Heritage Report (2008). The
limit of the regulated area is based on a 120 m setback from these riparian wetland features. However, since
the riparian features are totally contained within the valley, this 120 m setback would not be applicable. As
such, the appropriate setback was determined to be 7.5 m offset from the stable top of bank of the valley.
Based on a site visit and discussions with Conservation Halton staff, the proposed expansion appears to be
well outside of this setback limit, however detailed geotechnical investigation will be undertaken during
detailed design to verify the location of stable top-of-bank. A setback will then be agreed to with the
Authority prior to commencement of construction.
10.4.10.3 Lakebed fish habitat

It is proposed to use tunnel construction to the extreme offshore end of the effluent sewer. Diffuser shafts are
proposed to be drilled from a barge into the tunnel to minimize impacts on the lakebed. By adopting this
construction technique, a negligible lakebed area (approximately 5.4 m) would be impacted.
11 Monitoring
The following section outlines monitoring requirements that will be applicable to this undertaking.
11.1 Raw Sewage and Effluent Monitoring and Records

Effluent quality will be monitored to verify that criteria established by Ministry of Environment are being
met. The monitoring program defined in the most recent MOE Certificate of Authority is presented in tables
11.1 & 11.2, below.
Table 11.1 Raw Sewage Monitoring
Page 116
Parameter
Sample Type
Frequency
BOD5
Composite
Monthly
Composite
Monthly
Total Phosphorus
Composite
Monthly
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Composite
Monthly
Report Ref# 250101
Table 11.2 Effluent Monitoring

Parameter
Sample Type
Frequency
CBOD5
Composite
Weekly
Composite
Weekly
Total Phosphorus
Composite
Weekly
Composite
Weekly
E. coli (May 1 to Oct 31)
Composite
Weekly
pH
Grab/On-line Analyzer
Weekly
Temperature
Grab /On-line Analyzer
Weekly
Unionized Ammonia
Calculated
Weekly
11.2 Monitoring Required by DFO/CH

Watercourses, including 14-Mile Creek adjacent to the treatment plant, and water-bodies, such as Lake
Ontario shoreline adjacent to Coronation Park shaft site, will be monitored for turbidity impacts and other
potential impacts, in accordance with Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Conservation Halton
requirements.
12 Future Approval Requirements

When this project enters the Class EA Phase 5 for implementation of the project, there will be a number of
permits and approvals that will be required to allow for the construction of the preferred plant expansion and
effluent sewer alternatives. The following summarizes the permits and approvals that are expected to be
required:
MOE Regulations
Ontario Water Resources Act: Certificates of Approval will be required from the Ministry of the
Environment in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act.
Environmental Protection Act: Certificates of Approval will be required from the Ministry of the
Environment to cover potential air emission sources (such as noise and exhaust) at any new facility.
Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) Regulations
CSA International Codes and Regulations approved by TSSA: Natural gas and digester gas will be
used and gas systems will need to be inspected and approved prior to commissioning by the authorities.
The governing codes are CAN/CGA B 149-1 for natural gas and CAN/CGA B 105 for digester gas.
Ministry of Labour
Meet applicable codes and regulations including Ontario Health and Safety Act.
Ontario Fire Marshall
The Ontario Fire Code
NFPA 820 Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities
Report Ref# 250101
Page 117
NFPA 101 Life Safety Code
NFPA 68 Guide for Venting of Deflagrations
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
Input and approval to use or cross roads and right-of-ways, and to potentially disrupt traffic during
construction.
Railway Companies
Input and approval to use or cross railway lands during construction.
Conservation Halton
The project team will partner with Conservation Halton to coordinate with MNR and DFO and ensure that
all requirements are met with respect to stream crossings, shoreline work, and effluent sewer work in
Lake Ontario.
Conservation Halton outlined that the requirements in Ontario Regulation 162/06 would need to be
fulfilled in the undertaking of the project. The relevant components of this regulation state that
development is prohibited in areas within the jurisdiction of the conservation authority that are a) adjacent
or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System or b) rivers or stream valleys that
have depressional features associated with a river or stream. In order to develop on these areas, a signed
application for permission to undertake development must be filed with the conservation authority.
Ministry of Natural Resources
Public Lands Act: The MNR also administers this Act, which ensures preservation of public lands along
lake and river shorelines. To receive a work permit under the Public Lands Act, the MNR must receive
information on the facilities being constructed on public lands, their impacts and appropriate mitigation
measures.
MNR requires that a work permit be obtained in order to carry out the construction and installation of the
effluent outfall pipe and diffuser. In addition, a crown easement (waterlot) is required to for the
occupation of the lakebed.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Fisheries Act: Approval from the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) must be received
prior to constructing a sewage effluent outfall in Lake Ontario.
Transport Canada
Navigable Waters Protection Act: This Act, administered by Transport Canada, ensures that Canadian
navigable waters remain safe for transportation purposes. To receive approval under this Act, Transport
Canada will be provided with details on the location, depth and extent of the outfall. The Regions
property department will take the lead in acquiring the necessary water lot. The application for approval
under the Navigable Waters Protection Act will be submitted upon completion of the detailed design.
Town of Oakville
Approvals and input will need to be obtained from the Town of Oakville site plan approval and building
permits (under the Ontario Building Code) and local road upgrade/repairs needs.
Page 118
Report Ref# 250101
Utilities
Detailed design will need to meet appropriate codes and regulations with respect to electrical, water,
hydro, and gas such as C 22 Canadian Electrical Code Part 1 Safety Standards for Electrical Installations,
CAN/CGA B 149.1 for natural gas.
13 References
1. Dwyer, J. 2006. Halton Natural Areas Inventory. Volume 1: Site Summaries. Halton/North Peel
Naturalists Club, Conservation Halton, South Peel Naturalists Club, Regional Municipality of Halton
and Hamilton Naturalists Club. 335 pp.
2. Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental
Mangers (2004). Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities. Albany, NY.
3. Government of Ontario. (1976, amended in 1997). Environmental Assessment Act: R.S.O. 1990,
CHAPTER E.18.
4. KMK Consultants Limited. (September 2004). Mid-Halton STP Class EA Phase III Expansion ESR.
Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Halton.
5. KMK Consultants Limited. (June 2008). South Halton Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update.
Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Halton.
6. Metcalf & Eddy (2003). Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse. Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill,
Inc. Toronto.
7. MOE (2008). Design Guidelines for Sewage Works. Ministry of the Environment of Ontario.
8. Municipal Engineers Association (MEA). (October 2000, as amended in 2007). Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment. Published by the Ontario Municipal Engineers Association.
9. Regional Municipality of Halton. (September 23, 2009). Proposed Amendment No. 38 to the Regional
Plan (2006): Official Plan for the Halton Planning Area - Regional Municipality of Halton.
10. WEF (1992). Design of Municipal Wastewater Treament Plants. WEF Manual of Practice No.8. Second
Edition. Water Environment Federation. Alexandria,VA.
Report Ref# 250101
Page 119

ClassEA MidHalton ESR Final

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ClassEA MidHalton ESR Final

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Mid Halton Wastewater (Sewage) Treatment Plant

Phase IV & V Expansion

Regional Municipality of Halton

Phase IV & V Expansion Class EA

OBJECTIVES OF THE ESR .....................................................................................1

EA PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS .................................................................................7

STUDY APPROACH ..................................................................................... 7

CLASS EA PHASES 1 AND 2 MASTER PLAN REVIEW ....................................................7

PHASE 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................... 7

CLASS EA PHASES 3 AND 4 ..................................................................................9

CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS .................................................................. 2

PLANNING POLICIES, ACTS AND REGULATIONS ............................................................5

STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................... 9

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM ........................................................... 12

OVERVIEW OF WWTP EXPANSION REQUIREMENTS........................................ 13

MID-HALTON WWTP INFORMATION ...................................................................... 13

RECEIVING WATER ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 27

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 30

GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION .............................................................................. 37

EFFLUENT SEWER ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... 39

FLOW ATTENUATION STUDY ................................................................................ 39

Regional Municipality of Halton

Phase IV & V Expansion Class EA

EFFLUENT SEWER ROUTING ................................................................................. 46

SHAFT SITES .................................................................................................. 57

EXISTING PROCESS DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 71

PRIMARY TREATMENT ........................................................................................ 73

EXISTING PROCESS DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 69

GRIT REMOVAL ............................................................................................... 71

EXISTING PROCESS DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 66

PRELIMINARY TREATMENT / SCREENING .................................................................. 69

DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 57

NORTH PUMPING STATION .................................................................................. 66

EXISTING EFFLUENT DISCHARGE ROUTE ......................................................................... 46

EXISTING PROCESS DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 73

SECONDARY TREATMENT .................................................................................... 76

Regional Municipality of Halton

Phase IV & V Expansion Class EA

WAS THICKENING ........................................................................................... 89

SLUDGE DIGESTION ......................................................................................... 90

EXISTING PROCESS DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 90

BIOSOLIDS DEWATERING ................................................................................... 92

PUBLIC CONSULTATION OVERVIEW ........................................................................ 94

AGENCY CONSULTATION PROCESS ....................................................................... 100

NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT ....................................................................................... 94

FIRST NATIONS, ABORIGINAL & MTIS CONSULTATION .............................................. 105

9 REVIEW OF POSSIBLE CEAA TRIGGERS FOR RECOMMENDED SOLUTION AND PREFERRED

DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED DESIGN ................................................................... 108

Regional Municipality of Halton

Phase IV & V Expansion Class EA

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................. 109

RAW SEWAGE AND EFFLUENT MONITORING AND RECORDS .......................................... 116

12 FUTURE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 117

Regional Municipality of Halton

Phase IV & V Expansion Class EA

Regional Municipality of Halton

Phase IV & V Expansion Class EA

Regional Municipality of Halton

Phase IV & V Expansion Class EA

Table of Contents for Appendices:

Regional Municipality of Halton

Phase IV & V Expansion Class EA

Mathematical modelling to determine the ability of a receiving waterbody

Following primary treatment, contaminants dissolved in sewage are