Water Management Plan: Optimizing Wastewater Management Mark Anderson, P.Eng. Grand River Conservation Authority Jim Matthews Haldimand County 22 November, 2013 1

Background 30 municipal WWTPs discharging directly to surface water 3 drinking water intakes in the Grand River 2

Grand River Optimization Pilot Idea grew out of a collaborative process to address wastewater spills and bypasses Pilot project started in 2010 with funding from MOE Drinking Water Stewardship Fund, current efforts receiving support through Showcasing Water Innovations* * This Project has received funding support from the Government of Ontario. Such support does not indicate endorsement by the Government of Ontario of the contents of this material. Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Province.

3

What is optimization? Continuous improvement process to make effective use of existing resources and infrastructure to meet defined goals, e.g. improved effluent quality to reduce environmental impact.

4

Composite Correction Program: Performance “pyramid” Good economical effluent

Process control

Capable WWTP

Administration

Design

Maintenance 5

Optimization Program Objectives

Encourage best practice for wastewater treatment Create a watershed community of practice Provide opportunities for hands-on learning Build optimization capacity within the watershed Demonstrate environmental and economic benefits of optimization 6

Delivering the Optimization Program Workshops to engage wastewater operators/managers and MOE Demonstration projects Enhanced performance reporting and data collection

7

Examples of Data Collected Per capita flows upper range

lower range

median

1000 900

(L/person/d)

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

8

Program benefits Encourages stewardship within the wastewater community Empowers staff with tools and approaches to make good, data-based decisions Timeliness and confidence in data Improved water quality in the Grand River

9

Program benefits Improved understanding of plant capability and needs Potential to tap latent capacity in existing infrastructure Reduces risk of non-compliance and can facilitate a timely return to compliance when issues arise

10

Challenges Data collection and voluntary reporting Reluctance or lack of interest to participate Capacity and resources to deliver the program are limited Support for program development vs. delivering a project

11

Haldimand County Experience

12

Haldimand County Wastewater Systems

Caledonia WWTP Oswego Lagoons Hagersville WWTP

Cayuga WWTP Dunnville WWTP Jarvis Lagoons

Townsend Lagoons

Lake Erie Industrial Park Lagoons

13

Usefulness of CPE Approach Training of County staff Evaluation of reported WWTP performance Review of treatment capacity and identify potential limitations Identified facilities that would benefit from technical assistance

14

Technical assistance at Caledonia History of performance concerns specifically elevated effluent ammonia Consultant recommended de-rating and costly expansion Training of operator and County technical staff Troubleshooting the real cause of poor performance Identification of process bottlenecks (minor design limitation) Demonstrated improved performance without derating or expansion (saved >$10 million) 15

Performance Results Monthly Average Effluent Ammonia 3.5

Monthly Average (mg/L)

3

Initiated CTA (June 2010)

Ammonia Non-compliance: Alkalinity = 0 mg/L pH = 5.3 (July 2010)

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Ammonia Concentration

C of A Limit

C of A Objective

16

Hagersville and Cayuga capacity demonstration

Successfully demonstrated additional treatment capacity at both plants since May 2012 Assimilative capacity assessment will determine effluent quality requirements Utilizing latent capacity is a potential secondary benefit of optimization

17

“Lessons Learned” The optimization program is tapping the existing capability of facilities and staff Skills development of County and Veolia staff is a key measure of program effectiveness Optimization activities require that County staff work on-site at facilities

18

“Lessons Learned” Positive outcomes (i.e. effluent quality & developing capacity) require patience and tenacity The understanding and support of County managers is important in ensuring continued progress The program is resulting in cultural change within the County, requiring flexibility to adapt to changing roles and responsibilities 19

Thanks for your attention! Questions?

20

21

Most improvement will be seen in central Grand River, e.g. model shows TP will decrease at Blair by 24 µg/L (interim) or 32 µg/L (final)

22

22