lauren@kelman.ca

FALL 2015 • VOLUME 10 

Send undeliverable Canadian addresses to: lauren@kelman.ca 

PM #40065075 

TERTIARY 

TREATMENT 

TECHNOLOGIES 

& PRACTICES 

IN THE SPOTLIGHT: 

SCOTT SMITH 

OPERATOR PROFILE: 

PATRICK CARRIÈRE 

OPCEA PROFILE: 

BRIAN ALLEN

ISO 9001:2008 * 

WWW.SENTRIMAX.COM 

Costs are kept in check and repair times greatly 

decreased with our extensive parts inventory 

and our unique capability to custom manufacture 

virtually any centrifuge component. 

Sentrimax has built its reputation on a superior 

level of service and quality control. Rigorous 

testing, comprehensive inspection reports 

and unmatched expertise are all part of the 

Sentrimax Advantage. 

ALTHOUGH WE’RE NEW TO ONTARIO, 

OUR EXPERTISE WITH DECANTER 

CENTRIFUGES SPANS THE CONTINENT. 

(*Pending) 

As Sentrimax expands into new territory 

in Eastern Canada, we bring with us a 

solid history and vast experience in the 

service and repair of municipal decanter 

centrifuges. Our vertically integrated 

machine shop operations in both Canada 

and the U.S. provide a complete, in-house 

range of services that is second to none, 

and every aspect of a decanter centrifuge 

repair is executed with the utmost regard 

for quality and reliability. This is what our 

customers continually expect and this is 

what Sentrimax consistently delivers. 

SENTRIMAX CENTRIFUGES INC. 

9440 60 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T6E 0C1 

Phone: 780.434.1781 Toll Free: 866.247.5141 

SENTRIMAX CENTRIFUGES (USA), INC. 

108 Sentry Drive, Mansfield, Texas 76063 

Phone: 817.453.8112 Toll Free: 844.327.3632

TOGETHER, MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CLEAN WATER 

Are you looking for ways to improve your water treatment efficiency? 

Increase biological process throughput and performance? Protect 

the integrity of your plant and collectors from sulfides corrosion? 

Decrease energy consumption? Kemira can help you solve these 

challenges and more. We aim to be a leading water chemicals supplier 

for raw and waste water applications, serving municipalities and 

water intensive industries. Together with our customers, we apply 

our knowledge and expertise to develop innovations that address the 

sustainable future of water. 

Tel. +1 800 879 6353 

us.info@kemira.com 

www.kemira.com

Sustainable Solutions for a 

Greener Future 

• Beneficial Reuse of Biosolids 

• Advanced Technologies 

• Mobile Dewatering 

• Lagoon Cleaning 

• Confined Space Entry 

• Treatment Plant By-pass 

• Vacuum and Haulage Service 

• Custom, Mobile Screening 

• Proven Technology – Industry Leader 

CANADA’S PREMIER BIOSOLIDS 

MANAGEMENT COMPANY 

Call 905-544-0444 

www.terratecenvironmental.com 

sales@terratecenvironmental.com

WEAO Board of Directors 

2015 - 2016 

PRESIDENT 

Rob Anderson 

H2Flow Equipment Inc. 

470 North Rivermede Road, Unit #7, Concord, ON L4K 3R8 

Phone: 905/660-9775 X29 Email: rob@h2flow.com 

VICE-PRESIDENT 

Brian Gage 

Aqua Technical Sales Inc. 

124 McNab St. South, Suite 200, Hamilton, ON L8P 3C3 

Phone: 905/528-3807 Email: brian.gage@aquatsi.com 

PAST PRESIDENT 

John Duong 

Region of Halton 

1151 Bronte Road, Oakville, ON L6M 3L1 

Phone: 905/825-6000 X7961 Fax: 905/825-0267 

Email: john.duong@halton.ca 

DIRECTOR 2013-2016 

Mike Newbigging 

XCG Consultants 

820 Trillium Drive, Kitchener, ON N2R 1K4 

Phone: 519/741-5774 X242 Cell: 519/577-6767 

Email: michael.newbigging@xcg.com 


John Presta 

Region of Durham 

605 Rossland Road East, Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 

Phone: 905/668-7711 X3520 Email: john.presta@durham.ca 


José Bicudo 

Region of Waterloo 

150 Frederick Street, Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 

Phone: 519/575-4757 X4720 Email: jbicudo@regionofwaterloo.ca 


Erin Longworth 

CIMA Canada 

7880 Keele Street, Suite 201, Concord, ON L4K 4G7 

Phone: 905/695-1005 X6722 Email: erin.longworth@cima.ca 


Dean Iamarino 

Halton Region 

1151 Bronte Road, Oakville, ON L6M 3L1 

Phone : 905/825-6000 X4494 Email: dean.iamarino@halton.ca 


Richard Szigeti 

City of Toronto 

130 The Queensway, Toronto, ON M6N 4X4 

Phone : 416/392-2359 Email : rsziget@toronto.ca 

SECRETARY/TREASURER 

Larry Madden 

C & M Environmental Technologies 

48 Alliance Boulevard, Suite 207, Barrie, ON L4M 5K3 

Phone: 705/725-9377 X229 Email: lmadden@cmeti.com 

EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR 

Julie Vincent 

WEAO 

PO Box 176, Milton, ON L9T 4N9 

Phone: 416/410-6933 Fax: 416/410-1626 

Email: julie.vincent@weao.org 

WEF DELEGATE 2011 - 2015 

Vanessa Chau, Asset Management OCSI Vice-Chair 

CH2M 

400-245 Consumers Road, Toronto, ON M2J 1R3 

Phone: 416/499-0090 X73758 Cell: 416/889-6730 

Email: vanessa.chau@ch2m.com 

WEF DELEGATE 2012 - 2016 

Rosanna DiLabio 

Pinchin Environmental Ltd. 

2470 Milltower Court, Mississauga, ON L5N 7W5 

Phone: 905/363-1319 

Email: rdilabio@pinchin.com 

CWWA REPRESENTATIVE 2013 - 2016 

William Fernandes 

City of Toronto 

18th fl., 55 John Street, Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 

Phone: 416/392-8220 

Email: wfernan@toronto.ca 

OWWA REPRESENTATIVE 2014-2015 

Marcus Firman 

The District Municipality of Muskoka 

Phone: 705/645-7599 

Email: mfirman@collus.com 

PWO REPRESENTATIVE 

Rick Niesink 

Regional Municipality of Niagara, Water & Wastewater Services, 

Welland WWTP, 505 River Road, R.R. #1, Welland, ON L3B 5N4 

Phone: 905/735-2110 Cell: 905/651-1048 Fax: 905/788-9878 

Email: rick.niesink@niagararegion.ca 

OPCEA REPRESENTATIVE 2015 - 2016 

Dale Jackson 

ACG Technology Ltd 

131 Whitmore Road #13, Woodbridge, ON L4L 6E4 

Phone: 905/856-1414 X22 Email: dale@acgtechnology.com 

YOUNG PROFESSIONALS REPRESENTATIVE 2015 - 2016 

Nancy Afonso 

Black & Veatch Canada 

50 Minthorn Boulevard, Suite 501, Markham, ON L3T 7X8 

Phone: 905/747-8506 Email: afonson@bv.com 

FEATURES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TERTIARY TREATMENT 

TECHNOLOGIES & PRACTICES 

Hybrid Depth Filtration.................................................................................................................22 

A Novel Technology for Meeting Ultra-low 

Phosphorous Permit Limits...........................................................................................................26 

Optimization of Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Facilities 

to Achieve Consistent and Compliant Effluent Quality........................................................30 

Full Scale Microfiber Cloth Filter Achieving 

Ultra-Low Total Phosphorus Limit.............................................................................................34 

Current Best Practices for Chemical Phosphorus Removal................................................38 

Tertiary Disk Filters at the Kitchener WWTP.......................................................................42 

Decentralized Tertiary Wastewater Treatment Plant with a Sub-Surface 

Disposal System for a New Residential Development in the Town of Mono.................44 

Proven and Emerging Technologies to 

Achieve Ultra-Low Phosphorus Limits..................................................................................... 46 

The City of Barrie: Moving Beyond Tertiary Treatment......................................................50 

Optimizing Tertiary Treatment at 

the Lindsay Water Pollution Control Plant..............................................................................52 

Risks Associated with Application of Municipal 

Biosolids to Agricultural Lands in a Canadian Context................................. 56 

Sizing Up Your I&I Detention Facility Needs.................................................... 59 

DEPARTMENTS 

President’s Message................................................................................................................7 

In The Spotlight: Scott Smith...............................................................................................8 

Young Professionals & Students Corner.........................................................................11 

Committees’ Corner.......................................................................................................... 63 

OPCEA News....................................................................................................................... 67 

OPCEA Profile: Brian Allen.............................................................................................. 68 

Operator Profile: Patrick Carrière................................................................................. 70 

Wrenches and Spanners..................................................................................................... 73 

Directory of Advertisers................................................................................................... 78 

©2015 Craig Kelman & Associates Ltd. All rights reserved. The contents of this publication, which does not 

necessarily reflect the opinion of the publisher or the association, may not be reproduced by any means, in 

whole or in part, without prior written consent of the publisher. 

INFLUENTS is published by 

on behalf of the WEAO Communications Committee 

Tel: 866-985-9780 Fax: 866-985-9799 

www.kelman.ca 

21 

Publisher Cole Kelman 

Managing Editor Christine Hanlon 

Design/layout Jackie Magat 

Advertising Sales Darrell Harris 

Advertising Co-ordinator Stefanie Hagidiakow 

Publications mail agreement #40065075 

Send undeliverable Canadian addresses to: lauren@kelman.ca 

Send changes of address to: 

WEAO 

P.O. Box 176, Milton, ON L9T 4N9 

julie.vincent@weao.org

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 

COME GATHER ’ROUND 

By Rob Anderson, H2Flow, WEAO President 

ome gather 

’round people 

wherever you 

roam, and admit 

that the waters 

around you have 

grown… 

If you know 

your Bob Dylan 

songs, you already know my theme for 

this message. This year has brought 

and continues to bring many changes. 

When I started as Vice President of the 

Association in April 2014, if you would 

have asked me how I thought things 

would be at this time, I would have 

likely been way off. 

Last fall, the 

Board was wrapping 

up the new strategic 

plan, and while 

we knew that the 

imminent retirement 

of our Executive 

Administrator, Julie 

Vincent, was on the 

horizon we did not have a fixed date. 

Jump forward a few months to 

mid-January: we now have a fixed 

retirement for Julie for the end of 

October this year, and our other key 

administrative office staff person, 

Anne Baliva, gave notice that she was 

taking a growth opportunity, moving 

on to help lead another association. 

Following that, the WEAO Board of 

Directors undertook a comprehensive 

review of Association staffing needs 

and resourcing opportunities, 

resulting in a decision to re-assess the 

Association’s staffing model and adopt 

a structure that no longer included 

the services of a part-time Executive 

Director. Correspondingly, Lyle 

Shipley’s contract with the Association 

came to an end earlier this June. 

Since that time the Board has been 

actively engaged in the search for a new 

senior staff person. While I don’t have 

anything in terms of details I can reveal 

at this time, I do want to let you know 

that the work completed to date has 

been exhaustive and educational. By 

the time the next issue of INFLUENTS 

rolls around, I hope to be introducing 

all of you to that new person. 

While I could probably fill this 

column with details and more 

information about the Board’s 

reasoning for the change to the staffing 

model, or with details about the 

search, I am instead going to take the 

opportunity to say a proper farewell 

to a lovely person who has more than 

capably served our Association for 

many years. So Julie, the rest of this 

note is for you. 

We are going to miss you. I noted 

in my previous column in the summer 

issue of INFLUENTS that my initial 

involvement with WEAO related 

work was through the OPCEA Board. 

However, from my first actual WEAO 

committee involvement as the OPCEA 

rep on the Conference Committee, 

you have been a key fixture in the 

WEAO office. Over the years, through 

many different roles and functions 

with the Association, we have learned 

a lot together, taught and learned from 

each other, and shared more than a 

few ‘mother and son’ conversations. 

And now I find myself in the role of 

WEAO President, with a very sad, but 

very honoured privilege of wishing 

you an official farewell. On behalf of 

myself, the Board of Directors, and all 

members of the Association, thank you 

for your years of dedicated service; 

you have been invaluable to the work 

and the people of the WEAO. We will 

all miss your presence in the office 

dearly, but I also fully expect to see 

you strolling around at some future 

WEAO events and conferences where 

we can continue to share in the many 

friendships have been formed. Best of 

luck Julie. Know that you will always 

remain dear in our minds and hearts. 

YOUR PRIME SOURCE FOR PUMPING SYSTEMS 

Click HERE to return to Table of contents 

INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

7

IN THE SPOTLIGHT 

SCOTT SMITH: 

UNDERSTANDING AND MAXIMIZING 

PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL 

By Christine Hanlon 

s concerns over 

eutrophication 

in receiving 

waters increase 

and regulated 

phosphorus 

discharge 

limits decrease, 

maximizing the 

effectiveness of ‘Chemical P’ removal 

processes during wastewater treatment 

becomes ever more critical. The most 

widely used practice for decreasing 

phosphorus levels in effluent involves 

adding iron or aluminum salts. To 

date, however, the process by which 

these metals remove P from wastewater 

has generally been misunderstood. 

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) 

have long operated on the premise that 

adding metal salts generates phosphate 

precipitates that can then be filtered out. 

For the past 10 years, Professor Scott 

Smith of Wilfrid Laurier University 

has been involved in research to 

dispel that myth. Incorporated into 

modeling and management practices, 

this knowledge could substantially 

improve the efficiency and costeffectiveness 

of phosphorus removal in 

wastewater treatment. Since the first 

project, funding for the research in 

which Smith is involved has increased 

fifty fold, involving a number of public 

and industry partners, including the 

Water Environment Research Fund 

(WERF) and the National Sciences 

Engineering and Research Council of 

Canada (NSERC). Meanwhile interest in 

applying the findings continues to grow. 

An aquatic geochemist, Smith first 

stumbled into the area of wastewater 

treatment in 2004, when engineering 

consultants, EnviroSim Associates Ltd., 

approached his former PhD supervisor 

for assistance with a research project. 

Poised for retirement, the supervisor 

recommended Smith instead. The rest, 

as they say, is history. 

“I am an aquatic chemist but, 

up to that point, I hadn’t worked 

with wastewater,” recalls Smith. 

“This project involved applying 

geochemistry to engineering. I like to 

have applied problems to work on.” 

A Hamilton-based company 

specializing in modelling, EnviroSim 

was working closely with DC Water 

(the District of Columbia Water and 

Sewer Authority, then know as DC 

WASA), which discharges daily 

1.4 million m 3 into the Potomac 

River in the environmentally sensitive 

Chesapeake Bay area. Modelling is the 

key to maximizing phosphorus removal 

and minimizing the chemical dose. 

EnviroSim needed data in order to model 

levels and water chemistries similar to 

those DC Water was handling. 

The problem, they realized, was that 

no one had a good handle on what was 

happening to the phosphorus after the 

addition of the metal salts. 

That is where Smith came in. 

His lab started doing jar tests to 

simulate the treatment process on a 

bench scale, varying pH, iron and 

aluminum dosing and the amount of 

phosphate. Smith and his team generated 

a large data set, then interpreted that 

data in a geochemical context. 

Wastewater industry professionals 

had always assumed that phosphate 

was being removed as a precipitate 

in the form of ferric phosphate or 

aluminum phosphate. “We tested 

that, and that’s not what happens,” 

says Smith. “What actually happens is 

surface complexation.” 

Adding metal salt leads to the 

formation of oxide surfaces to which 

the phosphate binds. 

It is an important difference because 

surface complexation requires a 

different model than precipitation. 

The difference also entails a 

number of practical engineering 

implications. “The main one is the 

importance of mixing at the point of 

chemical addition,” explains Smith. 

“It is crucially important because as 

the oxide surfaces form they need to 

be exposed to the phosphate. If they 

form in the absence of phosphate, then 

you’ve lost that capacity.” 

Another aspect is the potential 

residual capacity of the solids formed. 

The reality of surface complexation 

signifies that, if there are remaining 

surfaces, they can be mixed again with 

phosphate to continue removal, without 

the addition of more metal salts, up 

to the point when capacity has been 

completely exhausted. Smith points out 

that a WWTP in Australia has utilized 

both rapid mixing and recycling to 

improve phosphorus removal with a 

dramatic decreased dose of metal salts. 

When Smith first presented his 

findings to DC WASA, the engineers 

from the WWTP indicated that iron 

was added during tertiary treatment 

much like water dribbling out of a 

garden hose. “Making the addition in 

a high-energy environment where there 

is potential for mixing will improve 

removal,” he told them. 

While efficiency is improved, so is 

cost-effectiveness. Along with reducing 

costs by using less of the metal salts, 

savings are realized from generating a 

lower volume of solids for handling and 

disposal. “That’s where the main cost 

saving is going to come in,” says Smith. 

8 INFLUENTS Fall 2015 

Click HERE to return to Table of contents

“It also simplifies things. There are less 

solids moving through the plant because 

you’ve added less salt that precipitates 

those solids.” 

The precipitated particles are recycled 

and used again and again until they 

reach their phosphate removal capacity. 

Recycling with shear to break the particles 

apart and expose the inner surfaces 

binds even more phosphate. A solid/ 

liquid separation completes the process. 

“Smaller particles have a greater 

surface area,” Smith points out. 

“Nanoparticles would work great for 

treatment, except that they are a lot 

harder to separate. He adds that if the 

only change treatment plants made was to 

increase mixing during chemical addition, 

there would already be a potential 50% 

to 80% increase in phosphate removal. 

Recycling and shearing would bring it 

down another 10% to 20%, an important 

consideration when trying to meet strict 

discharge limits such as those set for 

particularly sensitive water bodies such 

as Lake Simcoe. 

The fundamental challenge is to 

get the word out and convince both 

engineers and operators that surface 

complexation is in fact at the centre for 

the chemical phosphate removal process. 

Smith believes that the WEAO has an 

important role to play in meeting that 

challenge. In 2012, the Association 

invited him to its Nutrient Removal 

Conference to present his findings. 

“It’s basically about letting people know 

that you can do things slightly differently 

than you have been doing them and get 

good returns,” he explains. “Those types 

of communication efforts are huge.” 

He adds that it is important to expose 

young highly qualified personnel (HQP) 

to cutting edge science so that when they 

are in the role of operating, designing 

WWTPs or writing permit applications, 

they can apply this knowledge. 

At the same time, members of the 

EnviroSim/Laurier team, including 

Smith, have been involved in workshops 

in Baltimore, Dallas, Chicago, Miami, 

Seattle and Waterloo, attended by 

world-renowned academic experts and 

consulting engineers. The team’s past 

10 years of work has also yielded 11 

conference proceedings, 10 conference 

presentations, four technical reports, 

nine workshop presentations, eight 

invited presentations (including several 

international requests), three peerreviewed 

papers, one non-peer reviewed 

article (in the Summer 2011 issue of 

INFLUENTS) and one book chapter 

in a widely used wastewater manual 

of practice. 

All these results have been gratifying, 

but the greatest reward, says Smith, has 

been the application of his research. 

“When you look back on your career,” 

he explains, “you don’t simply want to 

count papers and research dollars. You 

want to think you had some real impact. 

As an applied chemist, you want to 

apply your chemistry to finding solutions 

that are useful and worthwhile.” 

That has certainly been the case so 

far, and Smith’s research in this area is 

far from over. 

The mid-career chemist plans to 

continue his quest to achieve ever-lower 

concentrations of phosphorus in 

treated effluent. His current work 

includes not only research on enzymes 

and nano-particles, but also the 

removal of non-reactive phosphorus. 

Phosphorus occurs in many 

different forms. To achieve lower total 

phosphorus levels, it is necessary to 

convert non-reactive phosphorus into 

reactive phosphorus so it can be removed 

using conventional tertiary treatment 

methods, where such methods can now 

be optimized using our new knowledge 

of surface complexation mechanisms 

As new legislation requires WWTPs 

to meet increasingly lower discharge 

criteria for phosphorus, this research 

will become even more critical. There is 

no doubt that the work of Smith and 

his team will continue to have an 

impact on the wastewater industry 

– and on protecting our environment – 

for many years to come. 

It is difficult to overestimate the impact this large project 

and specifically Scott’s contribution for the environmental 

industry – the use [of] proper chemical equilibrium is now 

the standard in wastewater treatment plant modelling. 

[C]hemical dosage points and dose can be optimized, 

saving millions of dollars in design and operations costs 

and reducing carbon foot print of these utilities. 

– Dr. Imre Takács, CEO of Dynamita SARL, 

a leading environmental process modeling company from France. 

There is an alternative to 

traditional water aeration. 

Introducing the world famous Becker and Republic brand 

rotary vane and regenerative style blowers that are quickly 

becoming the new industry choice. These powerful pumps 

will raise your expectations of a water aeration system 

because of their dependability, compact size, quiet & oil-free 

operation and they are pulsation free! 

GIVE US A CALL TODAY! 

R.E Morrison Equipment Inc. Mississauga, ON, Canada 1-800-668-8736 

www.remequip.com 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

9

YOUNG PROFESSIONALS & STUDENTS CORNER 

2015 KELMAN SCHOLARSHIP WINNER! 

WEAO YP Scholarship Sub-Committee 

EAO currently offers two 

scholarships each year to help 

support students interested in 

pursuing careers in the water 

environment field: 

• The Kelman Scholarship, 

awarded in summer, for 

students in their final year of 

high school who plan to attend 

a post-secondary institution the following year; and, 

• The WEAO Scholarship, awarded in the late fall, for 

post-secondary students currently enrolled in an Ontario 

University or College. 

Established in 2012, the Kelman Scholarship is awarded to an 

outstanding student in their final year of high school. To be 

eligible for the scholarship, the student needs to: 

• demonstrate an interest in the protection of water quality; and, 

• plan on attending a post-secondary institution in a related 

field of study the following year. 

Requirements for consideration include a short essay and a 

teacher reference form. We received a number of deserving 

applications this year, and are pleased to announce that this 

year’s recipient is: 

Samantha Brockington 

Samantha clearly demonstrated in her application essay that she 

has a passion for sustainable living. She has a keen appreciation 

for source water quality protection as a dedicated science student 

and avid fisher. From warning signs at her favourite fishing 

spots, she experiences firsthand the effect that pollution has on 

watersheds and local source water quality. Samantha is a Grade 

12 student in her final year at Sir Winston Churchill Secondary 

School in St. Catharines, Ontario. This fall, she will be joining 

the Environmental Technician program at Niagara College. 

The Kelman scholarship ($500) is provided by Craig Kelman 

and Associates Ltd. of Winnipeg Manitoba, the publisher of 

WEAO’s INFLUENTS magazine. In addition to the scholarship, 

Samantha will receive a one-year free student membership 

for the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and Water 

Environment Association of Ontario (WEAO). Information 

regarding the 2016 Kelman Scholarship will be available at 

www.weao.org/scholarships in February 2016. 

Thank you 

The WEAO Young Professionals Scholarship Sub-Committee 

would like to thank Julie Vincent and Anne Baliva of WEAO for 

all of their assistance with administering the WEAO Scholarship 

program as well as Natasha Niznik (Toronto Water), Jose Bicudo 

(Region of Waterloo) and Gen Nielsen (City of Ottawa) for 

their support in selecting this year’s winner. The sub-committee 

would also like to thank Heather Murdock, the previous 

lead for the Scholarship Sub-committee. Continuing in an 

advisory role to the new committee members, Heather was 

instrumental in organizing the program last year. She is an 

Engineer-In-Training at Hatch Mott MacDonald and can be 

reached at heather.murdock@hatchmott.com. 

The incoming WEAO YP Scholarship 

Subcommittee members 

This year we are lucky to have three new members for the 

Scholarship Subcommittee. Adebukola Olatunde will lead 

Arthur Tutt and Priya Persaud to administer both scholarships 

for the following year. 

Adebukola is a Process Mechanical Engineer and holds 

mechanical engineering degrees from McMaster University 

and the University of Toronto. She is currently working at 

Hatch Mott MacDonald in the Water and Wastewater group 

to develop solutions for water and wastewater treatment 

facilities and pumping stations. She can be reached at 

Adebukola.Olatunde@hatchmott.com. 

Arthur Tutt has a Bachelor’s degree in water resource 

engineering from the University of Guelph. He is an engineering 

intern in the water group at Stantec Consulting Ltd, and is 

working on developing solutions for basement flooding with 

the use of hydraulic/hydrologic modelling. He can be reached at 

Arthur.tutt@stantec.com. 

Priya is a Project Designer in GM BluePlan Engineering’s 

Water and Wastewater group. She graduated last year from 

Ryerson University with a Chemical Engineering (Co-op) degree 

with honours, and is a former recipient of the WEAO scholarship 

(2013). She can be reached at priya.persaud@gmblueplan.ca. 

DESIGN ENGINEERING • PROJECT DELIVERY 

RISK MANAGEMENT • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 

PLANNING & FEASIBILITY STUDIES • VALUE ENGINEERING 

WINNER OF THE 

2015 

CEO 

Award of Excellence 

WINNER OF THE 

2015 

OPWA 

Project of the Year 

(Environment, Greater than $50 Million) 

Proud to be part of the award-winning Keswick WPCP Expansion Project 

www.hatchmott.com 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

11


WEAO YP COMMITTEE – KICK-OFF INTERNAL TEAM 

BUILDING WORKSHOP 

By Nancy Afonso, E.I.T, Black & Veatch Canada, Water – WEAO YP Committee Chair 

he WEAO Young 

Professionals 

Committee (YPC) 

holds two internal 

team-building 

workshops a 

year – a kick-off 

workshop and 

a mid-year. 

The third annual kick-off workshop took 

place on June 14, 2015. Held after the 

annual conference, the event provides an 

opportunity for the YPC team to regroup 

under the leadership of the new steering 

committee, and sets the path for the 

upcoming governing year. The biannual 

workshops allow volunteers not only 

to meet their peers – a task that often 

proves difficult considering WEAO spans 

the entire province of Ontario – but also 

to build long lasting relationships. 

It never ceases to amaze me how 

much energy and enthusiasm our YPC 

volunteers have. It’s not easy giving up 

your free time on a Sunday afternoon in 

June – yet 20 YPs attended, including six 

new volunteers. The workshop aimed to 

achieve three main goals: 

1) Build relationships. 

2) Look forward and set goals. 

3) Establish a path toward achieving 

these goals with tangible action items. 

Most importantly, the workshop 

aimed to reiterate to volunteers that 

they are truly deserving of respect 

and admiration for all their hard 

work. The YPC now consists of 48 

volunteers in 11 sub-committees that 

help organize at least 10 events a year, 

lead the annual conference YP/student 

program including managing the 

Student Design Competition, 

run a scholarship and mentorship 

program, and manage 10 student 

chapters. This is no small feat and 

something to be VERY proud of! 

The day started with a Low-Tech 

Social Network game. As we walked 

in, we were asked to draw a photo that 

represented us. After we placed the 

photo on the wall, we had to answer 

three questions: 

1) How (or through whom) did you get 

involved with WEAO? 

2) Who on the YPC do you admire 

and why? 

3) Who do you want to get to 

know better? 

Reviewing everyone’s answers allowed 

us to learn a lot about each other and 

reminisce about how we got involved 

with WEAO and why. It became 

obvious that we share a common 

purpose and admiration for all the 

volunteers who dedicate themselves to 

the association and water environment. 

We broke for a potluck lunch and took 

some time to catch up with old friends, 

and meet some new ones. 

After lunch we moved onto a team 

building exercise developed by our friends 

at Engineers Without Borders (EWB) 

called the Water for the World activity. 

Participants were divided into different 

groups, each representing a country 

WEAO YPC members – all smiles! 

Low-Tech Social Network. 

Constructing a water filter and distribution system: YPs bargaining and testing their systems during Water 

for the World. 

Winning team 

– their water filtration system rocked! 



(e.g., Malawi, Ghana, Canada, etc). Each 

group was responsible for constructing a 

water filtration and distribution system. 

There were three challenges that each 

‘country’ had to overcome: 

1) Depending on the literacy level in their 

respective country, a group’s filter 

building instructions were wholly, 

partially, or completely illegible. 

2) Each group was provided monopoly 

money to match their country’s 

respective wealth. Amounts varied 

from $10 to $1000. 

3) Each group was provided a unique 

natural resource that would 

facilitate construction of the water 

filter and distribution system. 

Filter components, such as sand and 

gravel, were purchased with monopoly 

money at a common ‘store.’ Groups 

were encouraged to be creative in their 

approach to filter-building, and to work 

together and bargain with other countries 

or build alliances to attain the resources 

they needed. In the end, thanks to use of 

engineering resources at hand, diplomatic 

collaboration with other countries, and 

engineering ingenuity, Ghana emerged 

the winner. They constructed the 

most effective water filter, although 

Cameroon deserves honourable mention 

for their creative approach of building 

a water distribution system out of 

tape. The activity was nothing short of 

hilarious, with everyone’s competitive 

nature becoming blazingly obvious. 

But in the end, we managed to work 

together, building alliances and learning 

that what mattered was that everyone 

had access to clean water. Except 

Canada – they were ruthless (okay… and 

I may have been as well)! 

EWB facilitates the Water for the 

World program at high schools across the 

Greater Toronto Area during National 

Engineering Month. Those interested 

in participating as volunteers should 

contact Emma Cabrera-Aragon at 

CabreraAragonE@bv.com. 

The next portion of the workshop 

provided the meat and potatoes of 

the day. It consisted of an exercise 

similar to World Café, a format for 

hosting large group dialogues. Four 

small discussion groups, or stations, 

were created, each focused on different 

YPC sub-committees: 1) the Steering 

Sub-committee, 2) External Affairs 

and Conference sub-committees, 3) 

Professional Development and Social 

sub-committees, and 4) Student 

Chapters, Student Chapter Leadership 

YPs engaging in the World Café exercise. 

Forum, and Student Design Competition 

sub-committees. At each station we 

discussed 1) sub-committee goals for 

the year, and 2) tangible action items 

to achieve those goals. Sub-committee 

leads led the discussions at each station, 

and volunteers rotated between the 

different groups. At the end of the 

dialogue, the leads were invited to share 

their insights with the larger group, and 

the knowledge was harvested. Several 

common goals were established: 

1) Expand outside the GTA to 

service WEAO members across the 

province. 

2) Diversify membership and bridge 

the gap between different sectors of 

the industry. 

3) Build relationships and increase 

collaboration with other associations 

focused on the water environment. 

4) Improve on harvesting feedback and 

distributing information. 

Together we walked away with tangible 

action items per sub-committee to meet 

our goals and overcome our challenges, 

and opportunities for change and 

improvement that we hope to implement 

in the year to come. Thank you to all 

the volunteers on the YPC – I could not 

be more proud of your hard work and 

dedication, which was undoubtedly 

evident at the team build. I’m grateful 

to have the opportunity to lead such 

a committed, dynamic team. In the 

months to come, we are going to build 

on the successes of the past and continue 

to support each other and grow this 

amazing committee. A special thank you 

to my steering committee – Tiffany Chai 

and Ryan Aberin – for playing such key 

roles in putting this workshop together 

and for helping me every step of the way; 

and to Rob Anderson for taking time out 

of his busy weekend to join us and give 

us a valuable WEAO Board perspective. 

Thank you as well to past YPC chairs 

Alvin Pilobello and Alison Chan for their 

continuous guidance and support. 

About the Author 

Nancy Afonso holds an 

honours chemical 

engineering degree from 

Ryerson University and 

has worked as an 

Engineer-in-Training 

(EIT) in the Water 

Division at Black & Veatch for almost 

five years. She works in the evaluation, 

design, construction and delivery of 

projects involving wastewater treatment 

processes, biosolids management, and 

collection systems. Her experience 

includes team coordination; conceptual, 

preliminary and detailed design; tender 

and bid evaluation; permitting and 

approvals; contract execution; and 

construction support. Nancy has been 

volunteering for various WEAO 

committees since 2009; she is currently 

the YP Committee Chair, a member of 

the WEAO Collection Systems 

Committee and Government Affairs 

Committee, and sits on the WEAO 

Board of Directors as the YP 

representative. Nancy can be contacted 

at AfonsoN@BV.com. 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

13


WHAT’S A STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION ANYWAY? 

By the Student Design Competition Subcommittee 

he Student Design 

Competition 

(SDC) has been 

a part of the 

WEAO Annual 

Conference 

and Technical 

Symposium 

since 2009, and 

although it may be nothing more than a 

line in the pocket program to many of 

you, it has boosted new graduates into 

their budding careers. As we prepare 

to cheer on the Windsor University 

team at the 2015 Water Environment 

Federation Technical Exhibition and 

Conference (WEFTEC) event, we 

thought it would be a good opportunity 

to share the competition’s origins and 

what it takes to make it happen. 

Origins and 

WEAO participation 

The SDC began as a WEF initiative 

in 2002 as a way to showcase student 

talent. The idea originated in the 

Florida WEA Student and Young 

Professionals Committee and their 

event was adapted for the national 

stage. Since 2009 the event has had 

two categories: 1) Wastewater Design 

and 2) Environmental Design. 

WEAO has participated since 2009, 

and is a WEFTEC SDC superstar! In 

the seven years of participation, teams 

from WEAO have achieved 2nd place 

finishes five times. 

Road to WEFTEC 

There are two levels of competition 

that teams go through. The first level is 

the local competition, hosted by each 

Member Association (MA), typically 

at the MA’s Annual Conference. A 

real-world problem is given to teams to 

tackle, with each MA level event posing 

a different problem. The winner of this 

local competition is given funding to 

attend the next level of competition at 

that year’s WEFTEC. 

At the WEFTEC event, each team 

presents their winning design project 

from their local event, which means 

that there are as many topics being 

presented as there are teams. 

What’s Expected 

of the Students 

The scope of the project is something 

between a design proposal and a 

predesign report, where the students 

are expected to propose solutions 

based on fairly limited information, 

but also provide discussion of design 

alternatives and preliminary sizing and 

budget. The level of detail is expected 

to be that of a senior design project. 

Students have the assistance of an 

academic and an industry advisor, 

but are not permitted to use them 

for calculations or other major 

components of the project. 

For two semesters, the students 

juggle academic responsibilities 

and the competition, with the end 

products of delivering a design report 

(limited to 20 pages plus appendices), 

and a 20-minute presentation at the 

MA’s Annual Conference. This is no 

easy task as the presentation period 

typically coincides with final exams 

and papers! 

Designing the 

design competition 

The creation of a problem statement 

for the students to tackle is the 

responsibility of each MA. The MAs 

are aiming to choose a problem that 

is relevant and interesting to students; 

something to which creative solutions 

can be found; and something that 

would appeal to a wide variety of skill 

sets. Most importantly, the problem 

statement needs to be based on a real 

world project so that students can 

prepare for some of the challenges that 

await them in the professional world. 

Typical projects for the Wastewater 

Division would include upgrades to 

existing systems, or addressing a specific 

concern at a wastewater treatment plant. 

The Environmental Division deals with 

topics like wetland construction. 

A never ending process 

In WEAO, the responsibility of 

organizing the SDC falls to the 

Young Professionals SDC Subcommittee. 

Just as soon as one WEAO Conference 

is over, the subcommittee begins 

the search for the next sponsoring 

municipality and begins to 

collaborate to ensure the project 

is ready to deliver to students by 

September 1. The deadline to register 

is usually in the first week of October 

and students have until a few weeks 

before the next WEAO conference to 

finish the project. 

We get by with a little 

help from our friends 

The SDC subcommittee is dependent 

on a variety of WEAO members and 

organizations to get the project to the 

students and to get the winning team 

to WEFTEC, including: 

• A sponsoring municipality to 

provide the idea for a project 

statement based on a real world 

problem they are having and to 

provide background information 

including data, documents and 

drawings. A tour of the facility in 

question must also be provided, 

typically on a weekend. 

• WEAO staff who update the 

website and direct inquires to the 

committee. 

• The WEAO Board of Directors 

who support and advocate for the 

subcommittee. 

• The Conference Committee who 

funds and facilitates space, 

audio/visual and snack requirements 

for the event at the conference. 

• A panel of four intermediate or 

senior professionals who serve 

as volunteer judges to review the 

many design packages and attend 

the presentations at the WEAO 

conference, often on their own 

personal time. 

• WEAO sponsors who ultimately 

help fund site visit travel expenses 

and prizes for our winning teams. 

What’s in it for WEAO 

The benefits to the student 

participants are clear. They get 

exposure to a real world problem, 

the opportunity to use the event as 

their final year capstone project, 

an impressive accomplishment to 

add to their resume, networking 



opportunities within the industry, 

a one-year WEAO membership 

for completing the project, and a 

chance at the travel sponsorship and 

other cash prizes for the 2 nd and 3 rd 

place teams. 

But there are also benefits to 

WEAO. The event generates interest 

in the water environment as a career 

path, promotes Ontario as a place of 

innovation on the world stage and 

provides a handy showcase of prime, 

proven talent right at the Annual 

Conference that many members 

are attending anyway. So why not 

stop by next time and meet our 

industry’s future? 

What’s coming in 2016 

The SDC Subcommittee is in the 

second year of a two-year partnership 

with the Ministry of Environment and 

Climate Change to bring wastewater 

resource recovery and sustainable 

infrastructure into the spotlight. 

We are pleased to have the York 

Durham Duffin Creek Water Pollution 

Control Plant as the host facility for 

our next event. Watch the WEAO 

website for more details and be sure to 

keep Sunday, April 10, 2016 clear in 

your calendars to come see what the 

teams have come up with. 

THE WATERING HOLE 

The YP Advice Column 

Each issue we take a reader question and pose it to a variety of seasoned and young professionals. 

If you have a question you’d like to see answered or would you like to share your advice in the 

next issue, send a message to Dawn at driekenbrauck@asi-group.com. 

“As an employer, what do you look for when you’re hiring a young professional?” 

Terry Arcese, Director, 

Engineering Sales, HTS 

The old adage, “Hire for attitude, train for 

skill!” is particularly true for hiring new 

grads and young professionals. When hiring 

a young professional for an engineering sales 

role, what I look for is the right attitude, and 

social aptitude. I’m looking for someone who 

will think and act like an owner, someone that is committed 

to doing whatever it takes to offer sensational service to our 

clients. I pay attention to extra-curricular activities because 

I find them to be a good indicator of social aptitude. I would 

take a new grad with a long list of extracurricular activities 

before one with a long list of academic awards every time. 

I also look for personal values that are in sync with the values 

that make our company culture what it is, or to use another 

cliché, ‘character counts for more than credentials.’ 

Patrick Coleman, Principal Process Engineer, 

Water, Black & Veatch 

We look for Young Professionals who 

demonstrate they think for themselves, who 

can show that what they achieved in life has 

been because they worked at it, they have more 

than one dimension to their life (the ‘other’ 

section on the CV), they are aware of their 

social responsibility as EITs, they can write and communicate, 

they are teachable, and they can work as part of a team. 

The responsibility of a University is to teach students to think. 

The role of the Engineering Firm is to teach them to be 

engineers. We are looking for individuals who are ready to 

partner with us in their development as an engineer and who 

can maintain a healthy/sustainable work/life balance. 

Ignatius Ip, P. Eng. Manager, 

Wastewater, AECOM 

Here are a few things that I look for 

when hiring a young professional: 

• Work Ethic – In the engineering 

consulting industry, it’s important 

that someone can multitask and 

do many things at once. A young 

professional that had attended school and 

maintained a part time job at the same time 

looks very good on a resume. 

• Passion to Learn and Grow. Ability to learn 

from others – It’s important that they have a 

passion to learn from others and grow into 

the engineering profession. They must have 

the willingness to learn from the diversity of 

stakeholders they will encounter in our industry 

(engineers, operators, contractors, equipment 

suppliers, etc.) 

• Computer Skills – The industry is gradually 

adapting more sophisticated tools, which require 

a higher level of knowledge in different software 

applications, programming and CADD/BIM 

tools. A working knowledge is good to have, but 

what I find more important is a person’s attitudes 

and beliefs toward using technology to make 

things more efficient in the workplace. 

• Communication Skills – Communication is the 

backbone of our industry. It’s vital that the young 

professional is able to effectively write and present. 

• Team Chemistry – It’s important that the potential 

candidate is a good fit for the team. It’s crucial that 

they are able and willing to work with others. 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

15


GRAND RIVER WATERSHED-WIDE WASTEWATER 

OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM 

By Kelly Hagan, P.Eng., Optimization Extension Specialist, Grand River Conservation Authority 

Promoting performance excellence 

Many municipalities are faced with aging infrastructure, 

stringent effluent requirements, population growth and 

the impacts of climate change. Would it not be great if 

wastewater plants could produce better effluent or realize 

more capacity with very little investment? Optimization can 

identify opportunities to achieve these goals. Optimization is a 

continuous improvement process that identifies and addresses 

performance and capacity limitations. The Grand River 

Conservation Authority (GRCA) promotes optimization as a 

best practice for wastewater management. 

The Grand River Watershed 

The GRCA manages water and natural resources in the 

Grand River watershed. The watershed is the largest in 

southern Ontario (6,800 km 2 ) and flows almost 300 km 

from Dundalk into Lake Erie. It has a population of close to 

one million, which is expected to reach 1.53 million by 2051. 

Figure 1 – Map of the Grand River watershed showing the locations of the 

wastewater treatment plants. 

Grand River 

Conservation Authority 

Municipally Serviced 

Areas 

There are 30 municipal wastewater treatment plants 

(WWTPs) that discharge their treated effluent into rivers and 

streams (Figure 1). In addition, there are four communities 

that draw surface water for their municipal drinking water 

supplies. Population growth will result in more wastewater 

being discharged into these rivers. Therefore, it is imperative 

that wastewater effluent be high quality to ensure that river 

health continues to improve and watershed communities will 

continue to prosper. 

Watershed-wide Wastewater 

Optimization Program 

The GRCA Watershed-wide Wastewater Optimization 

Program (WWOP) began in 2010. Initially, it started as 

a pilot project based on a recommendation from the 

Municipal Water Managers Working Group – a long-standing 

partnership between the GRCA and its member municipalities. 

The program is a voluntary, collaborative process involving 

municipal partners and the Ministry of the Environment 

and Climate Change (MOECC). 

It aims to: 

• improve water quality in the Grand River and its 

tributaries by improving wastewater treatment plant 

performance; 

• improve the water quality of Lake Erie; 

• tap the full potential of existing wastewater infrastructure 

and promote excellence in infrastructure management; 

• build and strengthen partnerships for wastewater 

optimization; 

• enhance partner capability and motivation; 

• leverage and learn from experience with area-wide 

optimization programs in the US; and 

• demonstrate an area-wide optimization program that can 

serve as a model for other areas 

The program has been supported by in-kind contributions 

from municipal partners such as the City of Guelph, City of 

Brantford and County of Haldimand, as well as financial 

contributions from the MOECC. The MOECC has been 

an active participant in the development and delivery of the 

WWOP in the Grand River Watershed. 

5 0 5 10 15 Kilometers 

Drinking water intake 

Municipally Serviced Area 

WWTP (Population Served) 

50 - 30000 

90000 - 120000 

30000 - 60000 

120000 - 165000 

60000 - 90000 

N 

Composite Correction Program 

The WWOP promotes optimization by encouraging the 

adoption of the Composite Correction Program (CCP). 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed 

the CCP as a structured two-step approach to identify and 

correct performance limitations with the goal of producing 

high quality effluent in an economical manner. 

The CCP is based on the model shown in Figure 2, where 

good administration, design, and maintenance establish 

a ‘capable plant.’ By applying good process control to a 

capable plant, it can achieve a ‘good, economical’ effluent. 



Figure 2 – Composite Correction Program Performance Pyramid. 

Figure 3 – Area-wide Optimization Model. 

The first step of the CCP - a Comprehensive Performance 

Evaluation (CPE) – evaluates the administration, design, 

maintenance, and operations of a facility. Depending on 

the results of the CPE, a plant could move on to the second 

step – Comprehensive Technical Assistance (CTA) – where 

a facilitator works with plant operators and managers to 

address and resolve any factors impacting plant performance 

or capacity. This approach has been proven successful in the 

US and Canada for both water and wastewater facilities. 

Grand River watershed municipalities such as Guelph, 

Brantford, and Haldimand are successfully applying the CCP 

to their wastewater facilities, deferring capital expenditures 

and improving effluent quality. 

Area-wide approach 

Typically, CTA takes a minimum of 12 to 18 months to 

complete and is intended to be applied on a plant-by-plant 

basis, thus making it rather resource intensive. To address 

this challenge, the GRCA is promoting an area-wide 

approach. Figure 3 shows the main components of the areawide 

approach model. The model represents a proactive, 

continuous improvement method to improve effluent quality. 

The concept of the model is to track and assess performance 

of wastewater treatment plants across the watershed, and 

then apply limited resources to those in most need. This 

approach is based on the successful Area-wide Optimization 

Program used in the US to optimize drinking water 

systems. Major components of the model include the Status 

Component, Targeted Performance Improvement and the 

Maintenance Component. 

A key activity under the Status Component is continuous 

performance monitoring and reporting, which can be used 

to effectively measure the success of the various optimization 

efforts associated with the model. Targeted Performance 

Improvement establishes voluntary performance targets 

and works toward achieving them using performance-based 

training, technical assistance, and other activities to develop 

skills. The purpose of the Maintenance Component is to 

sustain and grow the program by continuing to engage 

wastewater professionals, developing a recognition program 

and documenting successes. Once these components have 

been successfully demonstrated within the Grand River 

watershed, they can be transferred to other jurisdictions. 

Program highlights 

Voluntary participation of wastewater operators and 

managers is key to the success of the program. The WWOP 

is committed to fostering this community of practice of 

wastewater professionals through workshops, meetings 

and regular communications. The WWOP also encourages 

enhanced reporting on plant performance, resulting in 

the creation of an annual report summarizing WWTP 

performance across the watershed. In addition to annual 

reporting, eight CPEs have been conducted under the WWOP. 

The purpose of the CPEs is twofold: to evaluate the 

performance and capacity of a plant and to provide hands-on 

training of the CCP. The WWOP also allows for follow-up 

technical support and skills transfer and development 

activities after a CPE has been carried out. A recognition 

program is being developed to acknowledge participating 

plants and to encourage others to get involved. 

It is about people 

The WWOP is a continually evolving program. Its core 

is people. By bringing people together to transfer skills, 

build capacity and share information, a community of 

practice is created, where participants share a commitment 

to continuous improvement and work together to achieve 

common goals that benefit everyone involved. 

For more information on the WWOP, annual reporting, 

and other optimization resources check out the GRCA’s 

optimization page at www.grandriver.ca/water/WWOP.cfm. 

Disclaimer: This project has received funding support 

from the Government of Ontario. The views expressed 

in this publication are the views of the author and do not 

necessarily reflect those of the Province. 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

17


YOUNG PROFESSIONALS 

– CALL FOR CONFERENCE ABSTRACTS 

By Dmitry Zolotnitsky, York Region, Conference Sub-Committee 

re you a student 

or young 

professional 

who is 

passionate 

about 

wastewater? 

Have you been 

working on 

an interesting or innovative project 

that you would like to share with 

colleagues in your field? If so, the 

2016 WEAO Conference may be the 

perfect opportunity for you to present 

and share your studies, projects, and 

experiences. Last year, over 15 students 

and young professionals submitted and 

presented articles covering all aspects 

of the industry. 

The WEAO YP Committee strongly 

encourages all students and young 

professionals to submit abstracts 

for the conference. Aside from the 

inherent prestige of presenting at 

the conference, some additional 

benefits include: 

• Company exposure: presenting a 

paper may allow you to showcase 

the work that you have been doing 

at your company. 

• Enhanced conference experience: 

presenting at the conference 

allows you to take a part in the 

WEAO conference, meet other 

professionals interested in your 

work, and have a more fulfilling 

conference experience. 

• Increased learning opportunities: 

by preparing a paper and a 

presentation, you will have the 

chance to dig deeper into a topic or 

project you are passionate about, 

speak to others in the field, and 

learn from their experiences. 

• Sharpen your public speaking 

skills: the only way to become 

a better speaker is to practice! 

Take this relatively low-pressure 

opportunity to hone your skills, 

which, if executed well, may even 

impress your boss! This leads us to 

the final perk... 

• Company sponsored conference 

admission: being a speaker at 

the WEAO Conference is a very 

persuasive reason for companies to 

sponsor you to attend the conference, 

and represent your company! 

To submit your abstract, please see 

WEAO’s call for abstract guidelines, 

available at WEAO.org. 

We look forward to seeing you at 

WEAO 2016! 

www.pumps.netzsch.com 

UPCOMING EVENTS 

FOR YOUNG 

PROFESSIONALS 

Social Events and Professional 

Development Sub-Committees 

• OCTOBER 24 

– Tertiary Treatment Seminar, 

Tour and Social (Location TBD) 

• NOVEMBER 21 

– Soft Skill Seminar on 

Presentation and Technical 

Writing Skills (Location TBD) 

• NOVEMBER 26 

– Ontario Water Industry 

Holiday Bash 2015 (Location TBD) 

Follow the WEAO YP’s on Twitter 

(@WEAOYP) and LinkedIn 

(WEAO Young Professionals) for any 

updates on these and other events. 



• CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING 

• EMERGENCY BY-PASS PUMPING 

• MINE DEWATERING (design and installation) 

www.atlasdewatering.com 

111 Ortona Court 

Concord, ON, L4K 3M3 

T 905-669-6825 

F 905-669-4036 

• ATLAS ENVIRO-TANKS TM 

• ATLAS AQUA-BARRIER 

(environmentally friendly coffer dams) 

• DIESEL AND ELECTRIC PUMPS 

• 2 INCH THROUGH 18 INCH GODWIN PUMPS 

Made to Order Environmentally Friendly, 

Engineered Coffer Dams - Install in Hours 

Atlas Enviro-Tanks TM Ground Water and 

Surface Water Settlement / Treatment Tanks 

24/7 EMERGENCY SERVICES 

1-877-669-6825 

SEW-WaterGuide2013.pdf 1 10/9/2013 2:56:23 PM 

C 

M 

Y 

CM 

MY 

CY 

CMY 

K 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

19

FIELD 

TESTING 

DOES 

NOT 

NEED 

TO BE 

DIFFICULT. 

Introducing the DR 1900 Portable Spectrophotometer! 

The DR 1900 Portable Spectrophotometer is designed to go where you need to go and 

deliver accurate results, regardless of potentially dusty and wet conditions. Underneath the 

rugged exterior, the DR 1900 has over 220 of the most commonly tested preprogrammed 

methods already built in to make your field tests easier. 

To learn more, visit: hach.com

TERTIARY TREATMENT 

TECHNOLOGIES & PRACTICES 

Hybrid Depth Filtration 22 

A Novel Technology for Meeting Ultra-low Phosphorous Permit Limits 26 

Optimization of Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Facilities to Achieve Consistent and Compliant Effluent Quality 30 

Full Scale Microfiber Cloth Filter Achieving Ultra-low Total Phosphorus Limit 34 

Current Best Practices for Chemical Phosphorus Removal 38 

Tertiary Disk Filters at the Kitchener WWTP 42 

Decentralized Tertiary Wastewater Treatment Plant 

with a Sub-Surface Disposal System for a New Residential Development in the Town of Mono 44 

Proven and Emerging Technologies to Achieve Ultra-Low Phosphorus Limits 46 

The City of Barrie: Moving Beyond Tertiary Treatment 50 

Optimizing Tertiary Treatment at the Lindsay Water Pollution Control Plant 52 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

21

TERTIARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES & PRACTICES 

Hybrid Depth Filtration 

BY OMAR GADALLA, P.E., PARKSON CORPORATION 

Methods of operation: Gravity, 

continuous operation and hybrid filters 

Depth filtration is widely used 

throughout the wastewater industry 

for final water polishing, water reuse, 

phosphorus removal, enhanced nutrient 

removal (ENR), total suspended solids 

(TSS) reduction, color removal and 

much more. Depth filters are best 

utilized when there is a need to capture 

a mass of solids, or when the bed 

itself is utilized as a treatment system 

(microfloculation) or when used as a 

media for ENR. It is not suitable when 

there is a need for an absolute barrier 

(surface filtration). 

The two major technologies 

traditionally utilized for depth filtration 

are gravity filters and continuous 

backwash filters. When a designer has 

had to make the choice between the 

two, they have encountered a give-andtake 

between the technologies. 

The basic difference at the core 

of these two filters is that traditional 

gravity filters operate based upon 

solids, whereas continuous filters run 

based upon hydraulics. 

Gravity filters use a static filtration 

bed in which the waste stream is passed 

through to remove contaminants 

(Figure 1). As solids build up, they 

decrease filter pore size that in 

turn causes the solids capture to 

increase, resulting in improved filter 

performance. This continues until a 

point of diminishing returns when the 

pressure loss across the filter becomes 

too great for continued operation and 

the filter is shut down and backwashed. 

Continuous backwash filters pass 

water through a media bed in the same 

manner; however, their backwash 

operation is very different (Figure 2). 

While this type of filter is in operation, 

sand and the solids removed from the 

waste stream from the bottom of the 

filters is passed to the top of the filter bed 

via a stream of air (air lift) and is then 

passed counter current to a side stream 

of the filter effluent (cleaner water). 

The velocity of this side stream is 

regulated through design (effluent versus 

reject weir heights) so that it will be fast 

enough to carry away the solids on the 

sand to a reject stream, but slow enough 

that the sand will be able to fall past it 

and back on to the top of the filter. 

The benefit of this is that the filters do 

not have to be taken off line at any time, 

eliminating the need for supplementary 

filters. Also, the process is driven 

completely hydraulically except for the 

air supplied to lift the sand. There is no 

need for pumping, valves, etc. A side 

stream of effluent water is used to clean 

the sand; therefore, there is no need for 

backwash tanks, pumps or valves. 

Although this design reduces the 

capital cost and required footprint, 

continuous backwash filtration is not 

without its negatives. Sand cleaning 

occurs at the same rate whether the bed 

needs it or not. In a gravity filter, the bed 

is allowed to fill with solids, resulting 

in higher performance, before cleaning. 

The frequency of cleaning is therefore 

only dictated by the concentration 

and characteristics of the solids in the 

influent stream. In contrast, the side 

stream of cleaning water for continuous 

backwash filters is driven purely by the 

difference in height of the weir in which 

it leaves the system (reject weir) verses 

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 

Gravity filters utilize an under-drain system to collect 

filtered water during operation, and then are taken 

offline for backwashing. 

Continuous filters utilize an airlift to 

remove a small amount of sand for 

cleaning while in operation. 




the effluent weir. This is why the system 

is said to be dependent on hydraulics 

(the hydraulics of this side stream) 

rather than the capacity of the filter to 

operate while loaded with solids, as is 

the case with the gravity filter. The same 

volume of water will be used to clean 

the sand regardless of how much water 

is fed to the filters. As a result, plants 

with variable flow are not well suited to 

continuous backwash filters. 

A newly developed filter system 

(marketed under the name EcoWash) 

has been developed in order to address 

some of the pitfalls discussed above. 

The operation of the filter is up flow 

and continuous, but the action by 

which sand is lifted from the bottom 

of the filter to the surface for washing 

is intermittent. This airlift is triggered 

based on a maximum headloss across 

the bed at the inlet channel, which has 

been caused by the buildup of solids, 

as is the case in the traditional gravity 

filter. The actual washing of the sand 

is the same as that of a continuous 

backwash filter in that it relies on 

specific effluent water velocities, 

achieved via specially-shaped channels 

and hydraulic potential caused by weir 

height differences. By allowing the sand 

washing to be variable, this continuously 

operated filter is now suitable for 

variable flow applications where the 

traditional, constantly washing system, 

was not applicable. Because the filter 

can be operated continuously, there is no 

need for redundant filters, and because 

media washing is intermittent, there is 

a related reduction in energy usage. 

For example, in the case study mentioned 

below it was found that there was a 90% 

reduction in air compressor running 

hours when the operation was switched 

from continuous to the hybrid option. 

operation visually at start up then 

only check occasionally for continued 

operation. With a hybrid system, the 

sand movement, valve closure and 

proper water path movement needs 

to be verified continuously due to the 

constantly changing operational modes. 

Throughout the years many mechanical 

means of verification were attempted, 

such as pinwheels, and screws in the 

filtrate pools and sand beds, however 

moving parts do not fare well in the 

abrasive sandy environment within 

the filter. After studying the hydraulic 

profile through the filter, it was 

determined that there existed a single 

point at which the proper operation 

of the filter could be determined by 

water level changes. This way, the filter 

operation can be verified continuously 

by an inexpensive level sensor that 

is located outside of the filter pool 

and sand bed. The second obstacle 

to development was the presence of 

turbidity spikes in the filter effluent 

that were observed when the airlift 

was initiated. This was determined to 

be caused by the escape of some of the 

air used in the airlift though the main 

body of the filter bed, which resulted 

in a temporary movement of the filter 

media, and consequently, a temporary 

decrease in solids capture. This was 

overcome by creating a “soft start” 

inside the airlift. A second air injection 

FIGURE 3 

point was located further up the airlift 

to diffuse the energy of the air injection 

away from the sand bed before adding 

air at the bottom of the airlift. 

Most affected by the hydraulic 

versus solids based controls are ENR 

systems where the bed of the filter is 

utilized as an anoxic reactor to remove 

nitrates and nitrites. These systems 

require a carbon source that is typically 

provided via methanol. Any over 

washing, or other inefficiencies 

quickly become apparent by an 

increase in required methanol over the 

stoichiometric requirement. Due to their 

inefficiencies, the amount of methanol 

typically required of continuous filters is 

greater than this stoichiometric amount. 

Therefore, the true test of whether or 

not a ‘hybrid’ filter was created would 

come from an ENR installation. The 

hybrid filter would need to match only 

the stoichiometric value similar to what 

traditional filters are able to achieve. 

CASE STUDY: 

The application of the hybrid filter 

operation in ENR resulting in decreased 

methanol demand as compared to a 

continuous backwash operation. 

At a full-scale installation in Laurel, 

DE, which is an ENR installation, 

data was collected on the amount of 

methanol needed for operation over a 

period of a year with a continuous filter. 

Laurel, DE WWTP – DynaSand ® ENR Filtration System 

Methanol Consumption 

Challenges inherent to the hybrid 

system and how they are overcome 

The creation of a hybrid between the 

gravity and continuous backwash 

filter did present a variety of design 

challenges. 

The first challenge was monitoring. 

Since the sand lifting mechanism is 

indirect and non-mechanical, it is 

necessary to verify proper operation 

each time the washing cycle is started. 

For continuous filters running all the 

time, this is not typically an issue 

as an operator can verify proper 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

23


FIGURE 4 

MeOH: Nitrate ratio 

After this, the filters were retrofitted to 

hybrid filters and the methanol usage 

dropped. The graph in Figure 3 shows 

the monthly methanol usage before and 

after the retrofit. 

Over time, the methanol dose dropped 

to the stoichiometric value, thereby 

indicating that a true hybrid filter had 

been created. Figure 4 demonstrates 

that this installation was able to achieve 

the predicted reduction in methanol to 

nitrite ratio as discussed in the preceding 

sections, and expresses the methanol 

dose based upon the amount of influent 

nitrate. The graph plots the ratio of 

methanol fed to the influent nitrate, in 

lb-methanol:lb-nitrate. Based upon the 

breakdown of nitrate in an anoxic reactor, 

the theoretical ratio should be 3:1, which 

is highlighted on the graph. The system 

eventually reached this theoretical ratio as 

can be seen in Figure 4. 

The author may be contacted 

via ogadalla@parkson.com for more 

information. A video to accompany 

this article is available at 

Parkson.com/hybridvideo. 

CREATE. 

ENHANCE. 

SUSTAIN. 

AECOM collaborates with its 

clients to provide comprehensive 

water and waste water solutions 

to manage, protect and conserve 

water systems and resources. 

www.aecom.ca 



OUR COMPLIANCE IS YOUR ASSURANCE. 

MSU 

1. CSA Certified Welding Procedures ü 

2. Semi Annual Canadian Welding Bureau 

third party audit ü 

3. CSA Certified Welders, tested every 

two years on every procedure ü 

4. Compliant with CSA S157 Strength in 

Aluminum Design, Building Codes, 

Bridge Codes ü 

THE OTHER GUYS 

? 

Think it is no big deal when contracts are awarded to a foreign or “here today, gone 

tomorrow” supplier? You may get treated well. You could save money. So what if they’re 

non-compliant? Nobody’s enforcing the standards, right? But compliance isn’t about 

enforcement. It’s about liability. When something goes wrong, are you sure you won’t 

be liable? 

MSU is certified by the Canadian Welding Bureau to CSA standards W47.1 and W47.2. 

All MSU welders are certified to CSA standards W59.1 and W59.2 Our work and 

products meet the most exacting requirements and the highest industry standards. 

Work with MSU – our compliance is your assurance. 

MSU Mississauga Ltd. 2222 South Sheridan Way, Building 3, Unit 300 • Mississauga, Ontario L5J 2M4 (800) 268-5336 • msumississauga.com •


A Novel Technology for Meeting 

Ultra-low Phosphorous Permit Limits 

BY CJ STRAIN, P.E. AND ROBIN SCHROEDER, BLUE WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; AND DALE SANCHEZ, VECTOR PROCESS EQUIPMENT INC. 

The alarming decline in the quality 

of receiving waters in North America 

has environmental leaders in both the 

US and Canada looking for ways to 

limit pollutants. As a macro-nutrient 

leading to algae blooms and hypoxia, 

phosphorous is at the forefront of 

environmental impact discussions. 

While non-point source legislation 

is slowly emerging, point source 

dischargers are already feeling the 

effect of more stringent discharge limits 

for total phosphorus (TP). 

Historically, phosphorus treatment 

in wastewaters has been accomplished 

using two main techniques: chemical 

and biological. In the chemical 

process (the more common for 

limits below 1.0 ppm), metal salts 

such as aluminum sulfate or sodium 

aluminate are injected into the waste 

stream to form insoluble phosphate 

FIGURE 1 

Sand filter media coated with a 

reactive chemical compound. 

precipitates that are removed via 

solid-liquid separation techniques 

such as clarification and filtration. 

While simpler than biological 

treatment, effective phosphorus 

reduction depends on staying ahead 

of the stoichiometric mass balance of 

the system with respect to chemical 

addition. This can result in overdosing 

the system with chemicals as operators 

tend to be conservative in ensuring 

proper reduction rates. Chemical 

precipitation methods generally 

consume a significant amount of 

costly chemicals. In biological 

processes or biological nutrient 

removal (BNR), microorganisms 

capable of storing large amounts of 

intracellular phosphorus (up to 30% 

on a dry-weight basis) grow within a 

consortium of other bacteria. While 

biological processes can produce 

phosphorus removal efficiencies 

approaching 90%, they tend to be 

much more challenging to operate than 

chemical systems. Biological systems 

are living systems, therefore requiring 

careful monitoring of air flow 

through the system, nitrogen content, 

temperature, liquid flow and other 

parameters in order to maintain the 

viability of the biomass. Additionally, 

more significant disruptions of 

biological systems can render the 

system inoperative, and require several 

days or even weeks to return the 

system to a healthy living state. While 

capital costs for chemical treatment 

systems are lower than for biological 

systems, O&M costs are usually much 

higher due to the chemical costs. 

While these two main techniques for 

phosphorus removal are well-known 

and can be operated effectively, 

capital and O&M costs, operational 

complexity, chemical handling and 

other considerations have opened 

the door in recent years for water 

treatment experts to develop and 

launch more competitive technologies. 

Reactive sand filters constitute 

an alternative option that offers 

a unique approach to phosphorus 

mitigation by combining chemical 

and physical treatment in one 

unit. Conceptually, the intent of 

the technology is to increase the 

efficiency of chemical treatment by 

coating a high surface area media 

with a temporarily reactive chemical 

coating. The phosphorous is then 

adsorbed onto the coating surface as 

the water flows past. This technology 

overcomes diffusion limitations of 

traditional chemical precipitation 

methods by bringing the water to 

the chemical and forcing contact 

between the two media sources. 

The increased efficiency of this 

method allows much less chemical 

to be used. Figure 1 shows the 

sand grains coated with hydrous 

ferric chloride that then reacts with 

dissolved phosphorous and binds it 

to the media surfaces. The coated 

media grains are continuously cycled 

through the filter system’s media 

washer by an airlift. The airlift and 

wash-box design allow for continuous 

backwashing that strips the spent 

coatings from the media and allows 

the denser and freshly cleaned media 

grains to settle back to the top of the 

sand filter bed for reuse, while the 

buoyant spent coatings containing 

the adsorbed phosphorus leave the 

system through a reject line. The 

reactive filter reject stream is often 

returned upstream in the treatment 

process to take advantage of chemical 

recycle potential. Adding the still 

partially reactive reject stream back 

into the system adds value to this 

process by allowing additional contact 

time between the chemicals and the 

wastewater. Reuse of the reject stream 

can help buffer phosphorous spikes in 

the system allowing for more stable 

operation at the filters. The solids from 

the adsorbed chemical coating will 




settle in a typical clarification 

system and are removed through 

normal secondary sludge 

management systems. 

In addition to being more 

chemically efficient, this adsorption 

technique does not clog the filter 

with flocculated chemical precipitant 

as is often the case with traditional 

chemical precipitation/filtration 

treatment designs. Figure 2 shows 

the difference between the freeflowing 

adsorptive process compared 

to a typical filter capture process. 

The reactive filter maintains 

even flow and water distribution 

throughout the media bed while the 

coated media increases chemical 

contact with the phosphorous. 

This process has been field-proven 

to meet even the most stringent 

phosphorous limits in North America 

with installations meeting limits as 

low as < 0.022 mg/L P. 

Installations using the reactive 

filtration method for phosphorus 

removal include Marlborough, 

Massachusetts Waste Water Treatment 

Plant (WWTP). This installation is an 

example of a system that consistently 

meets stringent TP limits using reactive 

filters. This facility was designed for an 

average flow of 15.7 MLD (4.15 MGD) 

with a peak flow up to 44 MLD 

(11.62 MGD). Future Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) for phosphorous 

was established, requiring an 

additional capability of 0.07 mg/L 

TP for summer operations. CDM 

Smith, in conjunction with Blue 

Water Technologies Inc., completed 

the installation in late 2011. Data in 

Figure 3 from the first two months 

of operation in 2012 show the 

single-stage Blue PRO ® reactive 

filters maintaining effluent TP values 

between 0.03 and 0.06 mg/L. 

This installation has been operating 

for three years with excellent process 

control. The current winter TP limit is 

1 mg/L P, and the current summertime 

TMDL requires 0.1 mg/L phosphorus 

as shown in Figure 4. 

A second example of a trace 

phosphorus removal application is 

being installed at the Burrillville, 

Rhode Island WWTP. Burrillville 

has both a total phosphorous limit 

of 0.1 mg/L and a total copper limit 

of 8 µg/L. Because the Blue PRO ® 

FIGURE 2 

FIGURE 3 

Free flow through reactive filtration process allows better 

water movement than traditional capture processes. 

Total phosphorous removal data from the first two months 

of operation at the Marlborough, MA plant. 

Sample Number 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

27


FIGURE 4 

1.10 

1.00 

Total Phosphorus (mg/L P) 

0.90 

0.80 

0.70 

0.60 

0.50 

0.40 

0.30 

0.20 

0.10 

0.00 

FIGURE 5 

Marlborough, MA WWTP total phosphorous discharge 

concentrations compared to their TMDL permitted limit. 

J F M A M J J A S O N D 

Month 

2012 2013 2014 TMDL Seasonal Target 

Pilot unit of the Blue Pro reactive sand filter. 

reactive filter process is not specific 

to phosphorus, but an adsorptive 

mechanism with binding capacity for 

other constituents as well, it was of 

particular interest in this application. 

The wastewater plant is designed for 

a daily average flow of 0.6 MLD 

(1.5 MGD), with peak daily flows 

of up to 1.7 MLD (4.5 MGD). 

Blue Water Technologies, Inc. initiated 

a pilot of the reactive filter in the fall 

of 2013. Figure 5 shows an image of 

the pilot unit. The data demonstrated 

that after chemical optimization, the 

reactive filtration system produced 

< 0.075 mg/L TP and total copper as 

low as < 1 µg/L (the analytical method 

detection limit). 

Reactive filtration methods have 

become more appealing in recent 

years because they not only meet the 

immediate water quality treatment 

needs, but also provide those solutions 

with a platform that offers tremendous 

future flexibility. Customers and 

engineering consultants alike have 

come to appreciate this fact in cases 

where bed volumes of reactive filters 

are known to be of sufficient capacity 

to incorporate simultaneous biological 

denitrification where total nitrogen 

levels could become a treatment 

requirement in the future, in addition 

to phosphorous, total suspended solids 

(TSS), biochemical oxygen demand 

(BOD), and metals polishing. The high 

quality water, low in turbidity and 

pollutants, produced by reactive filters 

can also be recycled as reuse water as 

a non-potable water source providing 

additional benefits. Finally, many 

customers appreciate the flexibility of 

the platform, allowing for the addition 

of filters over time to meet either more 

aggressive discharge limits or increased 

flow down the road. 

Reactive filtration has proven to 

be an efficient treatment method for 

maximizing trace contaminant removal 

and minimizing chemical usage costs 

at a competitive capital investment. 

Its varied applications include 

mitigating trace phosphorus, mercury, 

copper, zinc, and other trace elements. 

The authors can be contacted 

via email: CJ Strain, P.E. (cstrain@ 

bluewater-technologies.com), Robin 

Schroeder (rschroeder@bluewatertechnologies.com), 

Dale Sanchez 

(dale@vectorprocess.com). 



Effective Liquid Analysis 

Memobase Plus – Calibration System 

Move all your analytical calibrations into the lab for increased efficiency and safety with 

Endress+Hauser’s new CYZ71D calibration system. Simply plug into your USB port, start the 

software and plug in your Memosens sensors. Save money with the all-in-one tool for bench 

top measurements, calibrations and automatic electronic documentation. 

Contact your local sales office for an in-plant demonstration. 

www.ca.endress.com/CYZ71D 

Endress+Hauser 

Canada Ltd 

1075 Sutton Drive 

Burlington, Ontario L7L 5Z8 

Tel: 905 681 9292 

1 800 668 3199 

Fax: 905 681 9444 

info@ca.endress.com


Optimization of Biological Nutrient 

Removal (BNR) Facilities to Achieve 

Consistent and Compliant Effluent Quality 

BY SARA ARABI, PH.D., P.ENG. AND MEHRAN ANDALIB, PH.D., P.ENG., BCEE, ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING SOLUTIONS, INC. BOURNE, MA 

In addition to controlling eutrophication 

in receiving water body and 

environmental benefits, biological 

nutrient removal (BNR) facilities 

have demonstrated economical and 

operational benefits. The utilization 

of BNR processes is potentially 

more economical than conventional 

activated sludge treatment or physical/ 

chemical processes. Incorporation of an 

un-aerated zone ahead of the aerobic 

zone in a BNR process can result in a 

substantial reduction of the aeration 

energy costs. The aeration energy needs 

would be further reduced because most 

of the substrate removal and some 

stabilization of organics would occur 

in the un-aerated zone. The two most 

widely used BNR processes are enhanced 

biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) 

which ties up soluble phosphorus within 

the waste activated sludge without the 

use of metal salts, and biological nitrogen 

removal which removes oxidized 

nitrogen. EPBR provides an economic 

benefit through reduction or elimination 

of chemical addition for phosphorus 

removal. This BNR process produces 

less waste activated sludge due to a lower 

sludge yield. Biological nitrogen removal 

recovers approximately one-half of the 

alkalinity consumed during autotrophic 

nitrification. It has been shown that 

anaerobic and/or anoxic zones placed 

ahead of aerobic zones in BNR processes 

act as biological selectors that discourage 

the growth of filamentous organisms, 

generally improve the sludge settling 

properties, and enhance process stability. 

Process optimization: Carbon 

augmentation for nutrient removal 

The performance of a BNR system is 

strongly affected by the characteristics 

of the wastewater influent to each 

zone of the process. Neither biological 

nitrogen removal nor EBPR can 

be accomplished without sufficient 

biodegradable organic substrate, 

i.e., as measured by chemical oxygen 

demand (COD) or biochemical oxygen 

demand (BOD). Carbon augmentation 

is used when there is insufficient 

carbon available to achieve complete 

denitrification, which is normally the 

case when low levels of total nitrogen 

(TN) (e.g. < 5 mg/L TN) are required 

in the treated effluent. A shortfall of 

readily – biodegradable COD (rbCOD) 

is known to negatively impact the EBPR 

process and addition of an external 

carbon source is required. 

The choice of a carbon source can 

have profound implications not just 

on the efficacy of nutrient removal, 

but also on plant and personnel safety, 

sludge yields, aeration adequacy, 

environmental sustainability, overall 

effluent quality, cost, and other factors. 

Recent studies also indicate the type 

of carbon source could have differing 

effects on nitrogen and phosphorus 

removal, even in the same treatment 

process. Table 1 provides a summary of 

stoichiometric and kinetic coefficients 

of denitrification values reported in the 

literature from several sources. 

Soluble and readily degradable 

substrates support the highest rate of 

denitrification. Although methanol has 

been the most widely used external 

carbon source, it often requires an 

adaption period of up to seven months 

before denitrification rates significantly 

increase due to low methylotrophs 

growth rates (US EPA, 2013). The 

flammability, safety concerns and price 

fluctuations for methanol have limited 

its use for wastewater treatment (US 

EPA, 2013). Agriculturally-derived 

carbon sources such as molasses, 

glycerol, corn syrup, sucrose and 

MicroC (glycerin based product), tend 

to have more predictable and less volatile 

price profiles (US EPA, 2013). Recently, 

glycerin has drawn significant attention 

as an alternative to alcohols (methanol 

and ethanol) for denitrification 

application and acetate for enhanced 

biological phosphorus removal, as it is 

safer, noncorrosive and nonflammable. 

Its price, biodegradability, high COD 

value and ability to promote nutrient 

removal behavior are all advantages that 

make this supplemental carbon source a 

TABLE 1 

Stoichiometric and kinetic parameters at 20°C for denitrifying biomass grown on different carbon sources. 

Carbon Source MicroC 2000 Methanol Ethanol Acetate 

Max Specific Growth Rate, µmax (d -1 ) 2.08 (a) 1.28 (b) 1.3 (d) 3.5 (g) 

COD:N 5.12 (a) 4.8 (c) 6.1 (e) 5.7 (c) 

Observed Yield (gVSS/g COD) 0.31(a) 0.29 (c) 0.38 (e) 0.35 (c) 

Specific Denitrification Rate, SDNR max 

(mgN/gVSS/h) 13.3 (a) 6.1(c) 10 (f) 13.6 (c) 

(a)Onnis-Hayden et al. (2011); (b) Dold et al. (2005); (c) Cherchi et al. (2009); (d) Dold et al. (2008); (e) deBarbadillo et al. (2008); (f) Nyberg et al. (1996); 

(g) Mokhayeri et al. (2006) 




viable alternative. In addition, glycerin’s 

abundance in nature has led to microbial 

adaptations for its uptake and use as a 

source of carbon and energy. 

Two case studies for application 

of MicroC products for biological 

nutrient removal are presented in 

this article. 

CASE STUDY 1: Industrial wastewater 

– Beef processing facility – Biological 

nitrogen removal 

Case Study 1 focuses on a beef slaughter 

and processing plant in Pennsylvania 

that recently completed an upgrade 

to the wastewater treatment facility 

(WWTF) (1.89 MLD) to comply with 

the total maximum daily load (TMDL) 

limits. The WWTF upgrades include a 

dual train, four-stage Bardenpho process 

(Photograph 1). Prior to the upgrade, 

the WWTF historically discharged 

>200 mg/L TN. Effective the start 

of October 2013, the WWTF’s 

new National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

required an annual TN average 

concentration of


The first step in the assessment was 

microbial analysis to determine the 

nature of the thick brown foam. 

The microbial analysis showed the 

presence of Thiothrix spp. in several 

foam samples (Photograph 2). Further 

investigation indicated that the high 

COD utilization rate in the post anoxic 

reactor combined with short HRT and 

low concentration of available nitrogen 

for assimilation resulted in excess 

brown foam and sludge bulking. 

Data collection and observation of 

system response with static modeling 

and simulation analysis showed the 

presence of high dissolved oxygen (DO) 

in the anoxic zones caused by excessive 

aeration in the aerated zone from an 

oversized blower with limited turndown 

control. DO was also being entrained 

FIGURE 1 

PHOTOGRAPH 3 


within the manhole splitter box that 

divides flow from the anaerobic zone 

into the two pre-anoxic zones. EOSi 

and the plant personnel were able to 

develop an operating strategy which 

incorporated changes to achieve a more 

steady biological process and to reduce 

effluent TN from >200 mg N/L to less 

than 3 mg N/L, thereby bringing the 

plant into compliance. Key operational 

changes included replacing the blower 

with one having better turndown 

control, piping changes in the influent 

manholes to reduce DO entrainment, 

and revised carbon feed strategy as 

recommended by EOSi. 

Within weeks of implementing 

the process enhancements, DO 

concentrations were optimized 

throughout the process. Thick brown 

CASE STUDY 1: Post anoxic NOx-N concentration. 

CASE STUDY 1: Anoxic reactor before (left) and 

after (right) EOSi implementation of key operational changes. 

foam was virtually eliminated throughout 

the entire plant. Photograph 3 shows the 

before and after photos of the foam on 

the anoxic tank. The plant achieved 

full denitrification with an effluent of 

NO x 

-N(Nitrate+ Nitrite)


displaced acetic acid for EBPR at this 

facility, resulting in a feed rate reduction 

of 833 L/day (220 gpd) and an estimated 

savings of approximately 30%. 

FIGURE 2 

CASE STUDY 2: Schematic process flow diagram. 

Conclusions 

Biological nutrient removal processes 

for wastewater treatment provide a 

cost effective method to meet the everchanging 

nutrient discharge compliance 

limits. Optimization of BNR facilities 

may be required to successfully achieve 

the required level of nutrient reduction. 

Addition of carbon sources may be 

required for BNR optimization or to 

avoid costly plant upgrades. Successful 

applications of MicroC carbon source 

addition for biological nitrogen and 

phosphorus removal for municipal and 

industrial treatment is presented. 

References 

Cherchi, C. et al. (2009). Implication 

of Using Different Carbon Sources 

for Denitrification in Wastewater 

Treatments. Water Environment 

Research, 81(8), 788-799. 

deBarbadillo, C et al. (2008). Got 

Carbon? Widespread Biological 

Nutrient Removal is increasing 

the Demand for Supplemental 

Sources. WE&T Magazine, Water 

Environment Federation. 

Dold, P. et al. (2005). Batch Test 

Method for Measuring Methanol 

Utilizer Maximum Specific Growth 

Rate. Proceedings of the Water 

Environment Federation (WEF) 

2005 Technical Exhibition and 

Conference. Washington, DC. 

Dold, P. et al. (2008). Denitrification 

with Carbon Addition – Kinetic 

Considerations. Water Environment 

Research, 80(5), 417-427. 

Mokhayeri, Y. et al. (2006). Examining the 

Influence of Substrates and Temperature 

on Maximum Specific Growth Rate 

of Denitrifiers. Water Science and 

Technology, 54 (8), 155-162. 

Nyberg, U. et al. (1996). Long-term 

experiences with external carbon 

sources for nitrogen removal. Water 

Science and Technology, 33(12), 

109–116. 

Onnis-Hayden, A. et al. (2011). 

Characterization of Alternative 

Carbon Sources for Denitrification, 

Proceedings of the Water Environment 

Federation (WEF) Technical 

Conference. CA: Los Angeles. 

Influent 

FIGURE 3 

TABLE 2 

External 

Carbon 

Anaerobic 

Basin 

Internal Recycle 

Anoxic 

Basin 

Aerobic 

Basin 

Anoxic 

Basin 

Return Activated Sludge 

Aerobic 

Basin 

CASE STUDY 2: Performance comparisons of EBPR feeds. 

Clarifier 

Waste 

Activated 

Sludge 

CASE STUDY 2: Performance comparison of EBPR feeds. 

Parameter Acetic Acid Transition MicroC2000 

BOD:TP 19 16 16 

TP removed (%) 98.2% 98.7% 98.0% 

Effluent TN (mg/L) 4.1 4.00 2.83 

Effluent TP (mg/L) 0.17 0.17 0.21 

Acetic Acid Feed (L/d) 1,100 795 0 

MicroC 2000 (L/d) 0 114 307 

lbs BOD (lb/d) 4267 4950 4167 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

33


Full Scale Microfiber Cloth 

Filter Achieving Ultra-low Total 

Phosphorus Limit 

BY TERENCE K. REID, AQUA-AEROBIC SYSTEMS AND DAVID NORTON, BROCKTON ADVANCE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY 

Introduction 

Many wastewater treatment plants 

(WWTP) in the United States face 

increasingly stringent regulations 

for effluent total phosphorus (TP) 

levels, for instance requiring levels of 

≤ 0.1 mg/L. Levels for the Brockton 

Advanced Water Reclamation Facility 

(WRF) (Figure 1) are no exception. 

This facility serves a population of 

100,000 in an area that includes the 

City of Brockton, Massachusetts and 

the nearby towns of Abington and 

Whitman as well as about 20 industrial 

users. A National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

was issued in May 2005 including a 

0.2 mg/L effluent TP limit based on 

a 60-day rolling average from two 

24-hour composite samples each week. 

In response, the city completed the final 

phase of an $83 million plant upgrade 

in 2008 to replace aging equipment and 

FIGURE 1 

upgrade the process to comply with 

current and anticipated future permit 

requirements. The process was designed 

to achieve 5.5 mg/L effluent total 

nitrogen (TN) along with the 0.2 mg/L 

TP permit limit. After this expansion, 

the City of Brockton and its engineer/ 

consultant began to plan an additional 

expansion to address more stringent 

future effluent objectives including 0.1 

mg/L TP in preparation for a potential 

total maximum daily loading (TMDL) 

that could occur during the plant’s 

20-year effective design life. 

Upgrades to address increased TP 

removal requirements 

Brockton elected to replace the four 

existing automatic backwashing (ABW) 

sand filters that were installed in the 

1980s by evaluating alternatives as part 

of the plant upgrade. Each of the 33.5 m 

(110 ft) by 4.9 m (16 ft) sand filters 

Brockton Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility. 

were rated for a 1,420 m 3 /hr (9 MGD) 

nominal capacity, but were able to 

actively filter only 70-83% of this 

flow. Further, the units had become 

maintenance intensive, requiring 

extensive repair and replacement of 

the underdrains and sand media. 

The facility decided to adopt a cloth 

media filtration process in order to 

meet design objectives. 

The first two of ultimately four 

model ADIFC 1680 AquaDiamond ® 

cloth media filtration systems were 

installed in 2007 and 2009 respectively. 

Developed by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, 

Inc. (AASI) (Loves Park, IL), the 

AquaDiamond concept was designed 

to be easily retrofitted into existing 

ABW filter beds and provide an 

increase in hydraulic capacity without 

adversely affecting the hydraulic profile. 

Each AquaDiamond provides 238 m 2 

(2,560 ft 2 ) of filtration area and is rated 

for 1,900 m 3 /hour (12 MGD) nominal 

average daily flow and 3,800 m 3 /hr 

(24 MGD) maximum flow. 

Investigating ultra-fine cloth media 

filtration for additional TP reduction 

With a desire to investigate whether 

further TP reductions were possible, the 

City of Brockton administrative staff 

approached AASI in order to be the 

first municipality to evaluate a newly 

developed ultra-fine microfiber medium 

on their existing AquaDiamond 

filters. This medium supports an 

array of densely packed polyester 

microfibers that promote the particle 

removal mechanisms associated with 

depth filtration. The newly developed 

UF-CMF filaments are constructed of 

a specially designed microfiber that is 

described as an ultra-fine fiber of less 

than 0.1 tex per filament (100 mg of 

material per 1 kilometer of filament). 

By employing ultra-fine fiber in media 




construction, the ratio of media depth 

to fiber diameter (L/d) is increased by 

200-300% over the existing standardfine 

CMF medium (Figure 2), and 

filtration performance characteristics 

are enhanced. An example of a publicprivate 

partnership, both parties agreed 

to share costs and install the new 

medium on one of the two existing 

filtration systems (Figure 3). 

FIGURE 2 

Comparison of standard-fine (CMF) and ultra-fine (UF-CMF) fibers. 

CMF 

Piloting 

The piloting’s primary objectives include: 

1. To assess the ability of the UF-CMF 

medium to remove particulate 

phosphorus and satisfy a 0.1 mg/L 

TP proposed limit. 

2. To validate the hydraulic and solids 

loading rates used to design future 

model 1680 AquaDiamond cloth 

media filters using the new UF-CMF 

medium. 

The validation testing was conducted 

from December of 2012 to April of 

2013. Throughout the four-month 

period, the two filters received common 

influent from the plant’s secondary 

clarification system. Testing was 

conducted in three phases in order 

to explore filter performance during 

(i) normal operating conditions of 

approximately 6 m 3 /m 2 /hour (2.4 gpm/ 

ft 2 ), (ii) at the average design hydraulic 

loading rate (HLR) of 8 m 3 /m 2 /hour 

(3.25 gpm/ft 2 ) and (iii) at the peak HLR 

conditions approaching 16 m 3 /m 2 /hour 

(6.5 gpm/ft 2 ). 

Results 

The UF-CMF demonstrated consistently 

lower effluent TP concentrations in 

comparison to the existing CMF 

material. While both the ultra-fine 

microfiber and existing standard-fine 

fiber media types were able to achieve 

Brockton WRF’s current 0.2 mg/L 

TP effluent permit, the new polyester 

microfiber material was able to remove 

the additional particulate phosphorus 

necessary to achieve the 0.1 mg/L 

target. The UF-CMF system produced 

an average effluent TP concentration of 

0.08 mg/L (n=22, ±0.02), representing 

a 27% reduction compared to the 

existing CMF’s performance of 0.11 

mg/L (n=22, ±0.02), with relative TP 

performance shown in Figure 4. 

In addition, the UF-CMF 

outperformed the existing cloth 

medium with respect to final total 

FIGURE 3 

FIGURE 4 

UF-CMF media installed in Brockton’s existing ABW basin. 

Relative TP removal performance. 

UF-CMF 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

35


FIGURE 5 

Comparative backwash and solids waste volumes. 

suspended solids (TSS), Nephelometric 

Turbidity Units (NTU), and iron (Fe) 

concentrations at prevailing conditions 

and maintained a high level of 

performance at the design average and 

peak HLR testing, as shown in Table 1. 

The additional solids capture by the 

UF-CMF was further corroborated by 

a commensurate increase in backwash 

volume (Figure 5). Backwash volumes 

were just under 1.0% of the applied 

flow for the CMF medium compared to 

about 1.3% for the UF-CMF. 

TABLE 1 Overall summary of results. 

Parameter Influent CMF Effluent UF-CMF Effluent 

TSS (mg/L) 3.89 1.04 0.66 

Turbidity (NTU) 0.77 0.32 0.23 

pH (s.u.) 6.85 6.96 6.84 

Iron (dissolved, mg/L) 0.08 0.08 0.05 

Iron (total, mg/L) 0.44 0.26 0.12 

Iron (particulate) 0.36 0.18 0.07 

Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 

) 95.6 123.0 111.0 

Total Phosphorus (mg/L P) 0.19 0.11 0.08 

Dissolved Phosphorus (mg/L P) 0.07 0.08 0.06 

Particulate Phosphorus (mg/L P) 0.12 0.03 0.02 

Conclusions 

Excessive nutrients, including 

phosphorus, are a leading cause of 

the failure of surface waters to meet 

water quality standards. Wastewater 

reclamation facilities will face 

increasing pressure to treat to lower, 

and potentially unprecedented, TP 

levels. Cloth media filtration is an 

adaptive technology that can be readily 

retrofitted into existing sand filter 

structures to increase capacity and 

elevate removal efficiencies. Ultra-fine 

microfiber cloth media is engineered to 

maximize depth filtration necessary to 

consistently attain TP levels below 0.1 

mg/L at hydraulic loading rates of 16 

m 3 /m 2 /hour (6.5 gpm/ft 2 ). 

For more information, please contact 

Terence Reid at treid@aqua-aerobic.com. 

Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to acknowledge 

the Brockton Advanced Wastewater 

Reclamation Facility for their initiative, 

participation, cooperation and access to 

the plant site. 



NEW 3rd 

Generation 

IQT part-turn actuator 

completes the IQ range 

Keeping the World Flowing 

Compact and robust direct 

drive output for the most 

challenging environments 

Real-time valve and 

process data visible 

at the actuator or 

downloadable 

Rotork Controls Canada, Ltd. 

2850-4 Argentia Road 

Mississauga, Ontario L5N 8G4 

W: www.rotork.com 

T: 905 363 0313 

E: CA-Sales-East@rotork.com 

Simple and fast 

commissioning using 

a secure Bluetooth 

connection – no cover 

removal required 

Outstanding environmental 

protection and optimum 

reliability through doublesealed 

protection – IP66/68 

(7m 72hrs) 

Actuator never loses 

position - even after 

loss of power, the 

latest valve position 

is retained using 

Rotork’s patented 

absolute encoder 

Electric Actuators | Fluid Power Actuators | Process Control Actuators 

Gearboxes and Accessories | Precision Control Instruments | Site Services | Networks


Current Best Practices 

for Chemical Phosphorus Removal 

BY JEREMY KRAEMER, PH.D., P.ENG., CH2M 

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) 

in Ontario have been required to 

reduce phosphorus (P) to at least 

1 mg/L since the 1970s, with effluent 

limits down to 0.3 to 0.5 mg/L 

becoming common through the 1990s. 

Currently, effluent limits of 0.1 mg/L or 

less are frequently required when plants 

are expanded, particularly inland 

where receivers are often Policy 2 with 

respect to phosphorus (P). Except for 

a handful of biological phosphorus 

removal WWTPs, P removal in Ontario 

is achieved by chemical treatment 

typically using ‘alum’ (aluminum 

sulphate) or ‘ferric’ (ferric chloride or 

ferric sulphate). A few plants still use 

‘ferrous’ (ferrous sulphate, sometimes 

referred to as pickle liquor), however 

it requires oxidation before it becomes 

effective and its use is in decline and 

will not be covered in this article. 

This article will discuss current best 

practices the reader can employ to 

remove phosphorus to low levels while 

minimizing alum or ferric use and 

associated cost. 

Types of phosphorus 

To understand P removal we must 

understand the types of P in wastewater. 

Although P occurs naturally in many 

different forms (organic P, ortho-P, 

polyphosphates, etc.), generally we are 

interested in two functional categories: 

FIGURE 1 

• Reactive versus Non-Reactive: When P 

is reactive it means the P can react with 

coagulants and form a particulate, 

whereas non-reactive P does not react 

with coagulants. At WWTPs that 

are achieving ultra-low effluent P 

concentrations, it has been observed 

that there is typically about 0.01 to 

0.02 mg/L of soluble non-reactive 

phosphorus in wastewater effluent. 

• Soluble versus Particulate: P must 

be in a particulate form in order 

to be removed by filters or 

sedimentation. Being ‘particulate’ 

is an arbitrary definition based on 

whether a substance is retained or 

passes through a total suspended 

solids (TSS) filter, which has a 

nominal pore size of 1.5 microns. 

Substances that are retained are 

said to be particulate while those 

that pass through are said to be 

soluble. However, it is important 

to note that “soluble” substances 

could still be either truly soluble 

(like orthophosphate) or colloidal 

(like organically-bound phosphorus). 

The P removal two-step process 

Chemical phosphorus removal at 

WWTPs can be simply considered as 

a two-step process, as illustrated in 

Figure 1 and outlined below: 

Step 1 – Convert soluble P to 

particulate form. In this step we convert 

Chemical phosphorus removal in two simple steps. 

reactive P into a chemical particulate 

(solid) using a coagulant. 

Step 2 – Remove the particulates. In 

this step, we use gravity sedimentation 

or filtration to separate the coagulated 

solids from the treated effluent. 

A WWTP’s effluent phosphorus 

limit then dictates to what degree each 

step is required; that is, how much 

soluble P needs to be converted to 

particulate (and correspondingly how 

much coagulant needs to be added) 

and how good a job needs to be done 

at removing the particulates (i.e., need 

for tertiary treatment, and if so, what 

type). These two steps of P removal 

are further discussed below, with an 

emphasis on Step 1. 

STEP 1: Convert soluble P to 

particulate form (i.e., coagulation) 

Recent research has significantly 

improved our understanding of how 

chemical coagulation works to remove 

P from wastewater. Notably, this work 

has a local link: Prof. Scott Smith from 

Laurier University (see In the Spotlight 

in this issue of Influents) was part of a 

team that formulated a new conceptual 

model of chemical P removal. As part 

of that work, they published a paper 

(Szabo et al. 2008) entitled Significance 

of Design and Operational Variables 

in Chemical Phosphorus Removal in 

WEF’s journal Water Environment 

Research. That paper is a worthwhile 

read for those who design or optimize 

chemical phosphorus removal systems. 

Several key observations from that 

work are discussed here. 

Type of coagulant 

The research showed that alum and 

ferric coagulants are equally efficient at 

phosphorus removal on a molar basis 

i.e., 1 mole of aluminum (Al 3+ ) is just 

as effective as 1 mole of oxidized iron 

(Fe 3+ ). Based on typical Greater Toronto 

Area bulk purchase prices of about 

$4.50 / kg as Al and $2.00 per kg as Fe, 




the cost per mole is pretty much equal 

(12 cents per mole of Al and 11 cents 

per mole of Fe, using the example costs 

here). So, the choice of coagulant really 

comes down to whether your local cost 

and availability for the two coagulants 

differ substantially, operator preference 

(some operators prefer alum because it 

is less corrosive compared to ferric), and 

other factors (e.g., ferric helps control 

sulphide gases in digesters and improves 

dewaterability compared to alum). 

Importance of mixing 

One of the important findings of 

the research was to identify the 

importance of rapid mixing of 

coagulants at the point of dosing 

into wastewater. This is illustrated 

in Figure 2, which illustrates that the 

residual soluble P after coagulation 

decreases as your coagulation mixing 

intensity G-value increases (the 

G-value is the mean velocity gradient, 

a measure of mixing intensity with 

units of inverse seconds [1/s or s -1 ]). 

Ideally, a G-value of at least 300 to 

400 s -1 should be provided. 

In particular, the research found 

that the first 30 seconds to 1 minute are 

the most critical for obtaining the most 

efficient use of the coagulant. 

When coagulant is dosed into water, 

it immediately begins forming metal 

hydroxides that begin to stick together. 

These initial metal hydroxides that 

are formed are the most effective at 

adsorbing P. As the metal hydroxides 

continue to stick together, ultimately 

forming visible flocs, most of the useful 

adsorption sites quickly become ‘lost’ 

as they become surrounded by other 

metal hydroxides therefore becoming 

the internals of the visible chemical floc 

(we say that P has become occluded 

inside the floc). Any internal adsorption 

sites are generally no longer accessible 

to P that is still in the bulk wastewater. 

This research tells us that if you 

want to decrease your coagulant usage, 

you want your coagulant and your 

phosphorus to be in close proximity. 

This explains why higher initial mixing 

energy improves phosphorus removal 

as was shown above in Figure 2: higher 

mixing energy ensures greater contact 

between P and the early formed metal 

hydroxides which results in more P 

being occluded on the inside of the 

resulting flocs, which maximizes 

coagulant efficiency (you can do more 

with less). Conversely, when coagulant 

just reacts in water to form metal 

hydroxides without any phosphorus 

nearby, the resulting ‘pre-formed’ metal 

hydroxides are much less efficient at P 

removal than the young and vigorous 

metal hydroxides formed within the 

first 30-60 seconds. As examples, 

pre-formed metal hydroxides can result 

when you have poor mixing or no 

mixing at the point of injection, or your 

Phosphorus Concentration, mg/L 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

FIGURE 2 

Higher coagulation mixing intensity 

improves phosphorus removal 

(after Szabo et al. 2008). 

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 

Mixing G-Values, s -1 

coagulant is mixed with carrier water 

prior to injecting into wastewater. 

Contact time 

Although pre-formed metal hydroxides 

are not as efficient as freshly formed 

ones, pre-formed metal hydroxides do 

still remove P but just at a much slower 

rate, as shown by the shallow sloped 

portion of the line in Figure 3. This 

slow rate is still useful if we can let the 

pre-formed flocs stay in contact with P 

for a long time. This is achieved through 

co-precipitation in the bioreactor. The 

pre-formed chemical flocs, when part 

of the mixed liquor, stay around for a 

time equal to the secondary treatment 

solids retention time. For example, for 

nitrifying systems in Ontario this is 

Commissioning begins at 

Norfolk County’s Delhi Wastewater Treatment Plant 

Commissioning has begun at Norfolk County’s Delhi 

Wastewater Treatment Facility. The $15M project 

included the construction of a new 3182 m 3 /day plant on 

an existing site, while maintaining treatment operations. 

Some temporary works were installed to facilitate the 

staging during construction and the existing plant will 

be removed when the new plant is complete. 

R.V. Anderson Associates Limited was able to avoid 

the construction of a new wet well by making use of the 

available grade change at the site. Poor soils and high 

groundwater levels were additional challenges that were 

overcome during construction. 


WEAO INFLUENTS In uents Fall Magazine 2015 39 

7” x 3.25” 

August 2015


Phosphorus Concentration, mg/L 

FIGURE 3 

Kinetics of phosphorus removal 

demonstrating importance of the first 

minute of coagulation mixing 

(after Szabo et al. 2008). 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Time, min 

typically 10 days or longer, which is 

plenty of contact time for continued use 

of the pre-formed metal hydroxides. 

Influence of pH, organic matter and solids 

Efficient P removal can be achieved over a 

wide pH range from 5.5 to 7.0. Therefore, 

because that pH range is typical of most 

WWTPs, pH is not very important to 

chemical phosphorus removal. 

In contrast to pH, increasing 

concentrations of organic matter 

(biological oxygen demand (BOD 5 

) 

or chemical oxygen demand (COD)) 

and TSS have a detrimental effect on P 

removal by coagulation. 

Step 2: Remove the particulates 

(i.e, sedimentation or filtration) 

Efficient solids removal is critically 

important for making the most of 

your efforts generating chemical solids 

in Step 1. It is well established that 

multi-point chemical addition is more 

efficient than just adding coagulant 

at a single point in a WWTP. Multipoint 

addition can also be thought of 

like the multi-barrier approach used 

in drinking water treatment: the more 

stages where we perform P removal, the 

more reliable will be the overall process 

in achieving the required effluent P 

concentration. Ideally, chemical should 

be added at each major treatment stage: 

• Headworks/Primary: Coagulant 

at this stage improves TSS removal 

in the primaries in addition to 

performing P removal. Adding the 

coagulant to an aerated grit tank 

provides excellent initial mixing. 

A typical primary effluent target is 

anywhere from 1 to 3 mg/L total P. 

• Secondary: Coagulant can be added 

to the overflow from the bioreactor or 

into an aerated mixed liquor channel 

to provide a reasonable amount of 

mixing energy. Mechanical mixing 

is not used because it will break 

up the mixed liquor flocs, which is 

detrimental to sludge settleability. 

However, mechanical mixing can be 

considered in membrane bioreactor 

systems which do not depend on 

sludge settleability. Good secondary 

clarifier performance is key because 

the effluent solids contain the P. 

Consideration can be given to 

techniques that can improve sludge 

settleability, such as anoxic selectors, 

classifying selectors, polymers to 

capture pin floc, and proprietary 

technologies such as degasification 

or S-Select. TM A typical secondary 

effluent target is about 0.5 mg/L 

total P when there is a tertiary 

treatment step. 

• Tertiary: Dedicated coagulation 

and flocculation ahead of tertiary 

clarifiers or filters is important if 

very low effluent P concentrations 

are required. This is where initial 

rapid mixing with a G-value > 400 s -1 

is key, plus some flocculation time 

to provide further adsorption of P 

to the metal hydroxides. Various 

technologies are available, such as 

tertiary clarifiers, high-rate ballasted 

clarifiers, and filtration of several 

types (shallow and deep bed granular 

media, disk filter and membranes 

either as tertiary filters or integrated 

into secondary treatment as a 

membrane bioreactor). 

Effluent total P (TP) limits well under 

0.1 mg/L now exist. For instance, 

the Spokane County Regional Water 

Reclamation Facility (Spokane, 

Washington State, USA) has a seasonal 

TP limit of 0.05 mg/L (March to 

October), which is achieved using a 

chemically-enhanced primary clarifier 

with a step-feed nitrifying/denitrifying 

membrane bioreactor utilizing ferric 

addition in a rapid-mix zone ahead of 

the membrane tanks. Although ferric 

was more expensive than alum at this 

site, ferric was selected as the preferred 

coagulant because of its benefits in terms 

of H 2 

S removal from biogas, which is 

used for co-generation and improved 

biosolids dewaterability. This facility 

has been operating since December 2011 

at 85% of rated capacity and has been 

achieving effluent TP in the range of 0.03 

to 0.04 mg/L. 

As to ‘how low can we go’ with 

chemical P removal, it appears that the 

current limit of P removal is related to how 

much soluble non-reactive P the wastewater 

contains, which is typically around 0.01 

to 0.02 mg/L. To go lower than this 

will require quaternary treatment, i.e., 

nanofiltration or reverse osmosis. 

Best practices for chemical 

phosphorus removal 

In summary, current best practices for 

chemical P removal include: 

• Dose the coagulant directly into 

wastewater. Do not mix with carrier 

water or otherwise add water prior 

to dosing. 

• Provide good mixing at the point of 

coagulant dosing into wastewater to 

maximize its efficiency. Rapid mixing 

using a mechanical mixer with a 

G-value of 300 to 400 s -1 or higher is 

ideal. Otherwise inject at a turbulent 

location such an aerated grit tank, 

the overflow out of a bioreactor or 

the discharge of a pump. Remember: 

your coagulant must come into contact 

with lots of phosphorus in less than 

one minute after being dosed into the 

wastewater. 

• Multi-point addition is more efficient 

than adding all coagulant at one 

location: add at each major stage 

of treatment (headworks/primary, 

secondary ahead of clarifiers or 

membrane tanks, and tertiary with 

dedicated coagulation/flocculation if 

very low effluent P is required). 

• Effective solids removal is obviously 

critical, at both secondary and 

tertiary stages. Target about 0.5 mg/L 

out of secondary if using a tertiary 

stage to achieve low effluent total P. 

• For very low effluent P of 0.1 mg/L 

or less, be prepared to dose a lot of 

coagulant! For example, 5:1 to 10:1 

molar ratio or higher. Sometimes excess 

coagulant is needed to achieve dilution 

of the P content of the effluent TSS. 

Reference: 

Szabo, A., Takacs, I., Murthy, S., Daigger, 

G.T., Licsko, I., Smith, S. (2008). 

Significance of Design and Operational 

Variables in Chemical Phosphorus 

Removal. Water Environment 

Research 80(5), 407-416. 



GROUP AUTO AND HOME INSURANCE 

Get MORE as a group member. 

MORE protection 

Quality auto and 

home insurance to 

suit your needs. 

MORE savings 

Exclusive group 

rates, plus additional 

discounts.* 

MORE peace of mind 

** 

We’re there 

when you 

need us most. 

WEAO members qualify for a 30% discount on your auto insurance policy 

and a 20% discount on your home insurance policy. 

Getting a quote is easy. 

1-855-636-8001 | info@inroadsinsurance.com 

www.inroadsinsurance.com 

The Economical brand includes the following property and casualty insurance companies: Economical Mutual Insurance Company, Perth Insurance Company, Waterloo Insurance Company, The Missisquoi Insurance Company, 

Federation Insurance Company of Canada. 

Economical Select® is underwritten by Waterloo Insurance Company. Due to government insurance plans, Economical Select does not offer auto insurance in British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Economical Select 

does not offer insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nunavut or Yukon. The agreement between Economical Select and your group sponsor may be terminated in accordance with its terms. Upon such 

termination, Economical Select will continue to provide the program to existing policyholders until their respective renewal dates. *Discount rating is based on a standard home and auto insurance policy underwritten by Waterloo 

Insurance Company with no previous discounts applied and does not take into consideration other insurance provider policy rates. **Percentage based on 70,466 Economical claimant survey responses measuring customer 

satisfaction with Economical’s claims services from January 2007 – August 2014. ©2015 Economical Insurance. All rights reserved. All intellectual property, including but not limited to Economical® and related trademarks, 

names and logos are the property of Economical Mutual Insurance Company and/or its subsidiaries and/or affiliates and are registered and/or used in Canada. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.


Tertiary Disk Filters 

at the Kitchener WWTP 

BY TROY BRIGGS, M.ENG., P.ENG., KIMBERLEY THOMAS, M.A.SC., P.ENG., AND THOMAS KOWPAK, M.A.SC., P.ENG., CIMA; 

JO-ANNE ING, M.A.SC., P.ENG., REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO; AND JOHN ARMISTEAD, P.ENG., AECOM 

The Kitchener Wastewater Treatment 

Plant (WWTP) is a conventional 

secondary treatment facility in the Region 

of Waterloo (Region) that has a rated 

capacity of 123 MLD and discharges to 

the Grand River. The Region has been 

undertaking a 10-year capital upgrades 

program at the Kitchener WWTP in 

the order of $320 million. Upgrades 

to the facility have been initiated to 

improve performance, effluent quality 

and reliability of the plant, and a key 

component of these upgrades is a new 

tertiary treatment facility. 

A thorough review of tertiary 

treatment technologies was undertaken 

with the goal of improving the removal 

of total suspended solids (TSS) and total 

phosphorous (TP). Cloth media disk 

filters were selected as the preferred 

alternative, primarily due to having the 

lowest capital and life cycle costs and 

low headloss, which avoided the need 

for intermediate pumping. The design 

parameters for the new tertiary filtration 

system were developed based on cloth 

FIGURE 1 

disk filter technology and the effluent 

objectives were set at less than 5 mg/L 

for TSS and less than 0.2 mg/L for TP. 

Disk filtration equipment can vary 

significantly between vendors, including 

equipment size and the number of 

units required, therefore, selection 

of the specific equipment model was 

required prior to completing the overall 

detailed design of the new facility. An 

equipment pre-selection process was 

initiated and included a pre-qualification 

of equipment and manufacturers, a 

pilot evaluation of the pre-qualified 

equipment at the Kitchener WWTP, and 

a pre-selection tender process. 

Pilot study and equipment pre-selection 

During the pre-qualification stage, 

manufacturers submitted proposals for 

the full-scale equipment requirements of 

the Kitchener WWTP tertiary facility, 

including model, number of units 

required, equipment size, filter surface 

area, and filter loading rates. Based on 

this proposal, they participated in a pilot 

Example MegaDisk installation (photo courtesy of Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.) 

program to confirm the performance 

and operational requirements of the 

proposed equipment. As an added 

benefit, operators were able to tour each 

pilot plant and observe the equipment 

and discuss operation and maintenance 

with supplier operators. 

Four manufacturers were selected 

to participate in the two-week pilot 

program in September 2013. Samples 

were analyzed for TSS, TP, soluble 

phosphorous (SP), carbonaceous 

biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD 5 

) 

and UV transmittance. The following 

operating conditions were considered: 

average flow, peak flow, solids stress, 

and ferric chloride addition. Each filter 

performed as expected under normal 

conditions; however, some of the filters 

began to falter as the flow increased 

and upset conditions were introduced. 

Not all filters achieved the TSS objective 

during peak flow, solids stress, and ferric 

chloride addition conditions. 

Results from the pilot study were 

used in the development of vendor 

design criteria for the pre-selection 

specifications. The peak hydraulic 

loading rates that could be treated 

during the pilot study were applied 

to the full-scale plant. The required 

backwash rate criteria and minimum 

filter surface area for the full-scale 

facility were adjusted based on the 

pilot study findings. Overall, the pilot 

findings confirmed similar hydraulic 

loading rates (i.e., peak hydraulic 

loading rate of 15 m/h on a submerged 

area basis) for each vendor when 

corrected to a total submerged or 

‘active’ filtration area. 

Tertiary filtration design concept 

Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. was 

the successful vendor in the preselection 

and is supplying four 24-disk 

MegaDisk ® units for this facility; the 

final detailed design of the tertiary 

filtration process and associated 




building were designed around these 

filters. An example MegaDisk ® 

installation is depicted in Figure 1. 

The tertiary filtration process consists of 

the following major system components: 

• Four tertiary filters installed in 

concrete basins (1 additional basin 

for future filter) 

• Four backwash pumps, which are also 

used removing solids that have settled 

at the bottom of the filter basin 

• Tertiary filtration bypass gate 

The filters are sized based on three duty, 

one standby. In practice, all four filters 

will normally run continuously, which 

minimizes system headloss and ensures 

continuous turnover of water within 

each filter cell. The filters are fully 

automated and are supplied power by 

a plant wide emergency backup power 

system. A rendering of the Kitchener 

WWTP tertiary filtration building is 

presented in Figure 2. 

The specific needs and conditions of 

the Kitchener WWTP were considered 

in the design and are reflected in the 

final design concept, including reducing 

headloss, filter bypass provisions, and 

maintenance access improvements. 

Headloss 

The tertiary filtration process is being 

added into an existing plant with a 

fixed hydraulic grade line. Minimizing 

headloss was an important consideration 

to avoid the need for intermediate 

pumping. The maximum allowable 

headloss, including inlet, cloth media, 

and exit losses was 0.6 m. 

The standard MegaDisk ® design 

is based on influent finger weirs (for 

improved flow distribution) and a 

fixed bypass weir gate. Headloss 

was minimized in the filter design by 

elongating the filter influent finger weirs 

and providing modulating effluent weir 

gates. Through these modifications, 

tertiary filter system headlosses were 

minimized and gravity flow from the 

secondary clarifiers through tertiary 

filtration to the UV disinfection system 

could be maintained. 

Filter bypass 

The tertiary filter system is designed 

to hydraulically treat the peak daily 

flow and TSS loading without any 

bypassing; flows above the peak daily 

flow will bypass the tertiary filters and 

be combined with tertiary effluent and 

FIGURE 2 

Kitchener WWTP tertiary filtration building interior 

directed to UV disinfection. Designing 

the tertiary filter system on peak day 

(2.0 peak factor) rather than peak 

instantaneous flow (PIF) (3.5 peak 

factor) allowed for a reduction in the 

number of filters and the overall building 

size without impacting the plant’s ability 

to achieve compliance objectives. 

An actuated bypass weir gate is 

provided upstream of the tertiary 

filters and is the main bypass control 

mechanism. Normally, the bypass weir 

gate is in a fully-raised position and 

all flow undergoes tertiary filtration. 

At high water levels upstream of the 

filters, the weir gate modulates to 

maintain the upstream water level at a 

fixed set point to maximize filtration. 

Tertiary bypass flow receives full 

secondary treatment and blends with 

tertiary treated effluent upstream of 

UV disinfection. 

Emergency fixed bypass weirs 

internal to the filters also allow for the 

bypass of PIF, should the bypass weir 

gate fail in the closed position. 

Maintenance access 

The filter basins are equipped with 

removable checkered plate covers, 

providing two main benefits: 

1) minimizing humidity and the 

presence of filter flies in the building 

and 2) providing additional working 

space on the filter room floor, allowing 

for common wall filter construction 

and maintenance access from covered 

adjacent filters. Small inspection 

hatches are provided to allow for easy 

inspection of the filters. 

An overhead crane has been 

provided for easy movement of 

equipment from the loading bay to the 

rest of the building. 

The filter basins were enlarged 

slightly to allow use of a custom 

removable maintenance platform, 

which can be installed in the filter 

basin on a temporary basis using 

the crane, to improve the ease with 

which maintenance (e.g., filter media 

replacement) can be performed. 

Conclusions 

Tertiary disk filters were selected for 

the Kitchener WWTP upgrades due 

to lower capital and operating costs, 

small footprint and low headloss. 

By working closely with the filter 

vendor, custom modifications were 

incorporated to increase value to 

the Region through reduced overall 

headloss and improved building 

environment and maintenance access. 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

43


Decentralized Tertiary Wastewater 

Treatment Plant with a Sub-Surface 

Disposal System for a New Residential 

Development in the Town of Mono 

BY JATIN SINGH, P.ENG, WSP CANADA INC. AND MICHAEL VARTY, P.ENG, WSP CANADA INC. 

All households, commercial and 

industrial developments in the 

Town of Mono (Town), Ontario, 

Canada are serviced by private 

septic systems. In 2012, Brookfield 

Residential (Brookfield) proposed a 

sub-division for new 340 detached 

residential houses at Part Lots 1 

and 2, Concession 2, in the Town. 

The area of proposed development is 

approximately 70.81 ha in size (175 

acres). In the absence of a municipal 

sanitary collection system or surface 

water body nearby, a new communal 

sewage treatment plant with a 

subsurface disposal system (leaching 

beds) was proposed by Brookfield. 

The Town agreed to this approach, 

and decided to take the operation 

of the sewage treatment plant and 

disposal system over from Brookfield 

once it has been successfully operating 

for five years. 

WSP Canada Inc. was retained 

by Brookfield in 2013 to design a 

new sewage treatment plant and a 

sub-surface disposal system to service 

the new community development. 

The effluent criteria for the new 

sewage treatment plant was established 

in consultation with Credit Valley 

Conservation Authority (CVC) and 

Ministry of Environment and Climate 

Change (MOECC). 

The effluent criteria are: 

• Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen 

Demand (cBOD 5 

): 10 mg/L, 

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS): 10 mg/L, 

• Total Ammonia Nitrogen: 2.0 mg/L, 

• Nitrate Nitrogen: 3.0 mg/L, 

• Total Phosphorus: 0.25 mg/L 

It was agreed that surface water 

quality objectives will be monitored 

separately upstream and downstream 

of the leaching beds, and will not be 

the basis of performance for the sewage 

treatment plant. 

As the effluent criteria were very 

strict, the performance is to be measured 

at the wastewater treatment plant so that 

adjustments could be made faster in the 

event of poor performance. Monitoring 

of the surface water and groundwater is 

being completed as due diligence, and as 

verification that the calculated impacts 

(such as phosphorous breakthrough 

from the leaching bed, and nitrate 

dilution) are accurate. Should 

unexpected impacts be noted in the 

environment, these would be reported 

to the Ministry of the Environment and 

Climate Change (MOECC). 

The proposed wastewater treatment 

plant equipment is designed for an average 

daily design sewage flow of 365,000 L/day 

(full build-out capacity). Equalization 

tanks were sized to assimilate peak wet 

weather flows and were constructed 

upstream of the wastewater treatment 

plant. Due to the proximity of the new 

sewage treatment plant to the new 

development (within 60 meters), the 

facility was designed to ensure it blended 

in with the surrounding properties and 

concealed all process modules while still 

being functional and cost-conscious. The 

wastewater treatment plant includes a raw 

sewage pumping station, two equalization 

tanks (with aerators), two integrated 

rotating biological contactors (RBC) and 

primary clarifiers (ROTORDISK ® systems 

by Blumetric Environmental Inc.), two 

secondary clarifiers, two deep bed sand 

filters, and chemical systems (alum, sodium 

bicarbonate, methanol). 

The effluent from the treatment plant is 

pumped to a sub-surface disposal system. 

Based on the soil type, groundwater level, 

and bedrock elevations encountered onsite, 

a fully-raised leaching bed was selected 

as the preferred servicing option. It was 

determined that by using a raised leaching 

bed sewage disposal system, in conjunction 

with tertiary level sewage treatment, there 

is capacity to hydraulically load the soils at 

twice the rate of conventional systems due 

to the reduced strength of the sewage being 

discharged. This allows for a reduction 

in the area required for the installation, 

and a corresponding reduction in cost 

due to the reduction in the amount of 

materials required. The subsurface sewage 

Building housing the tertiary filters, chemical 

systems, electrical room, and generator room. 

Outdoor rotating biological contactors 

with FRP enclosures. 

Leaching beds. 




disposal system includes a total of twelve 

above ground sewage leaching bed cells 

arranged in six groups and each group 

with two cells. The type of imported 

leaching bed sand was specially chosen to 

help minimize the effects of groundwater 

mounding, while still providing 

additional treatment capabilities in the 

sub surface. 

An aggressive design and 

construction schedule necessitated the 

pre-purchase of equipment and splitting 

the construction into three contracts: 

Contract #1 - Sub-Grade, Contract # 

2 -Wastewater Treatment Plant and 

Contract #3 - #2 and Leaching Beds. 

The contracts were split for time 

efficiency and Health and Safety reasons. 

Contract 1 needed to be installed while 

the process design (Contract 2) was 

being finalized. Contract 3 (Leaching 

bed) was given to a separate contractor 

who specialized in that work and that 

work area was made separate from the 

treatment plant work area for Health and 

Safety reasons. 

A contingency plan was put in 

place to be able to collect and treat 

the wastewater that is produced on 

Groundwater mounding is the phenomenon that occurs when significant 

volumes of water (in this case sewage effluent) is introduced into the subsurface. 

The nearly horizontal groundwater table beneath the leaching bed begins to ‘mound 

up’ beneath the discharge area and reduce (or eliminate) the treatment that would 

normally occur in the unsaturated zone of the soil. The regulatory requirements for 

minimum unsaturated zones are typically 600 to 900 mm. 

the site after the new residents of the 

development have begun moving in, 

if the wastewater treatment facility is 

not ready for use. The construction on 

the new facility started in April 2014 

and was to be commissioned in 

October 2014. However, due to late 

delivery of pre-purchased equipment to 

the site, the plant was commissioned in 

March 2015. Per the contingency plan, 

temporary arrangements were made to 

haul sewage to the nearby wastewater 

treatment plant. To accelerate 

the plant startup process and promote 

biological growth on the surface of 

the RBCs (during winter season), 

fresh activated sludge, sugar (15 to 

20 pounds) and many pounds of 

bacteria enzymes was fed to the RBCs 

for several weeks. Treated secondary 

effluent was not discharged to the 

tertiary filters until desired secondary 

clarifier effluent (cBOD 5 

and TSS) 

was achieved. A rigorous wastewater 

sampling procedure was adopted 

during the entire commissioning phase 

to check the efficiency of the plant unit 

processes, make process adjustments, 

optimize unit processes and achieve the 

desired effluent criteria. 

The treatment plant must comply 

with the established effluent limits 

(mandated by MOECC) six months 

after the commencements of the 

operation of the works. Most recent 

laboratory analysis of the tertiary 

effluent shows a significant reduction 

in the biochemical oxygen demand (8 

mg/L), total suspended solids (15 mg/L) 

and phosphorus (0.60 mg/L). The total 

ammonia nitrogen was 0.97 mg/L and 

the nitrate nitrogen was undetectable. 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

45


Proven and Emerging Technologies to 

Achieve Ultra-Low Phosphorus Limits 

BY ZHIFEI HU, PH.D, P.ENG., AND JIM FITZPATRICK, P.E., BLACK & VEATCH 

Due to eutrophication concerns in 

freshwater lakes, many wastewater 

treatment plants (WWTPs) in North 

America are evaluating methods to 

achieve ever-decreasing effluent total 

phosphorus (TP) limits. For example, 

the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction 

Strategy (June 2010), as a part of Lake 

Simcoe Protection Act (LSPA), developed 

specific effluent total phosphorus limits 

(concentration and loading) for each of 

the WWTPs that discharge into the Lake 

Simcoe Watershed. From the treatment 

technology perspective, there are four 

levels of effluent TP limits: 

• TP Limits of 1.0 milligrams per 

liter (mg/L): Facilities can use either 

enhanced biological phosphorus 

removal (EBPR) or chemical 

phosphorus removal with metal 

salts (iron or aluminum are most 

common). For example, some 

WWTPs that discharge into Lake 

Ontario in the Greater Toronto Area 

(GTA) use ferrous or ferric chloride 

addition to achieve final effluent TP 

concentrations below 1.0 mg/L. 

• TP Limits of 0.5 mg/L: Facilities will 

be required to produce effluent total 

suspended solids (TSS) less than 10 

mg/L in order to meet the TP limit of 

0.5 mg/L. To meet this limit, a tertiary 

filtration process is typically used. 

• TP Limits of 0.1 mg/L: Facilities 

typically incorporate additional 

treatment steps, such as tertiary 

chemical conditioning prior 

to filtration. 

• TP Limits of 0.05 mg/L and Lower: 

Facilities use advanced treatment 

processes which are evolving as the 

industry improves its understanding 

of phosphorus removal mechanisms 

and speciation. 

How is phosphorus removed 

Phosphorus in wastewater can be 

divided into two broad categories: 

particulate and soluble. Soluble phosphorus 

forms include orthophosphate, 

condensed phosphates and organic 

phosphates. The typical removal 

mechanisms include the following: 

• Biological process: During 

biological treatment, enzymes 

released by bacteria convert most 

condensed and organic phosphates 

to orthophosphate, which then can 

be metabolized by bacteria and used 

for growth. 

• Chemical precipitation: Chemical 

phosphorus removal is accomplished 

by adding a precipitant (such as 

aluminum, iron or calcium salts) to 

wastewater. The metal cation reacts 

with orthophosphate and alkalinity 

to form complex precipitates known 

as hydroxyl flocs, which can 

remove additional orthophosphate 

by adsorption mechanisms. 

Primary applications tend to rely 

mostly on stoichiometric precipitation 

chemistry, whereas tertiary applications 

require hydroxyl floc adsorption 

with much higher metal salt doses 

ruled by alkalinity side reactions 

and particle surface chemistry. The 

flocs can then be removed through a 

clarification or filtration process. 

• Adsorption: Facilities also can use a 

fixed media bed for orthophosphate 

adsorption. Historically, it was not 

feasible to regenerate phosphorus 

adsorbent medias; however, some 

medias have recently been developed 

that can be cost-effectively 

regenerated in-situ. In essence, this 

creates an ion exchange process. 

• Ion exchange: Ion exchange can 

remove orthophosphate; however, 

unless an ion-specific media is 

used, the media exchange sites 

will become exhausted mostly by 

competing anions such as sulfates, 

nitrates and carbonates. 

• Reverse osmosis (RO): RO 

membranes can reject charged 

species such as orthophosphate as 

well as large organic compounds. 

However, there is a typically small 

fraction known as soluble nonreactive 

phosphorus (SNRP) that cannot 

be removed by even the advanced 

biological methods or physicochemical 

methods described herein. 

TABLE 1 Summary of Tertiary Chemical Clarification Facilities to Achieve Ultra-Low TP (Source: USEPA, 2007). 

Facility 

Treatment Process 

Average Effluent TP 

Concentration, mg/L 

Breckenridge S.D., Iowa Hill WWRP, Colo. BNR + Chemical Addition + Tertiary Clarification + Filtration 0.055 

Breckenridge S.D. Farmers Korner WWTP, Colo. BNR + Chemical Addition + Tertiary Clarification + Filtration 0.007 

Summit Country Snake River WWTP, Colo. BNR + Chemical Addition + Tertiary Settlers + Filtration 0.015 

CoMag TM Treatment at Concord WWTP, Mass. Chemical Addition + Ballast Sedimentation + Magnetic Polishing 0.04 

Delhi, N.Y. Activated Sludge + Chemical Addition + Filtration 0.04 

BNR = Biological nutrient removal. S.D. = Sanitation District. WWRP = Wastewater Reclamation Plant. 




Factors for consideration to achieve 

ultra-low TP limits 

Consistently achieving ultra-low TP 

limits is challenging, and different 

factors that need to be considered in 

process design are described as follows: 

• As TP limits decrease to 0.05 mg/L 

and lower, effluent phosphorus speciation 

becomes more important. Chemical 

precipitation and adsorption can 

remove orthophosphate. However, the 

remaining soluble organic phosphorus 

concentration is plant-specific 

and may affect the plant’s ability to 

achieve ultra-low TP concentrations 

since it does not react to enhanced 

biological or advanced physicochemical 

processes currently established. 

• Laboratory analyses also can play a 

critical role. The method detection 

limit for TP typically is 0.02 mg/L, 

so the ability to measure and report 

at lower levels may require new 

or adapted laboratory procedures. 

Some laboratories can now measure 

at the 0.002 mg/L level. 

• Because of ultra-low TP effluent 

limits, it becomes more difficult to 

average out exceedances. Individual 

samples with high TP concentrations 

may influence average concentrations 

(e.g., monthly), leading to exceedances 

of regulatory criteria. Therefore, it is 

imperative to optimize the treatment 

processes to minimize opportunities 

for upset. 

Current ultra-low TP technologies 

and their applications 

Tertiary chemical clarification 

Tertiary chemical clarification facilities 

use a tertiary clarification process 

followed by filtration to meet ultra-low 

TP limits reliably. Typical chemicals 

used for tertiary chemical clarification 

include coagulation using alum or iron 

salt and flocculation aided by polymer. 

The clarifiers can be conventional 

clarifiers or lamella settling tanks. 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA, 2007) conducted a 

survey on North American WWTPs 

that achieve low concentration of 

phosphorus. Table 1 presents some 

facilities using tertiary chemical 

clarification from USEPA’s 2007 Survey. 

Two-stage granular media filtration 

There currently are two proprietary 

two-stage granular media filtration systems 

marketed for ultra-low phosphorus 

applications. Both utilize upflow, 

continuously backwashing filters. 

The first type of system polishes 

secondary effluent using iron-based 

metal salts added to the filter influent. 

Hydrous ferric oxide precipitates 

and coats the media granules, and 

phosphorus is adsorbed onto the media. 

Filter backwash partially removes 

the iron phosphate coating, which is 

recycled back to the activated sludge 

plant where additional reduction 

in phosphorus takes place through 

floc adsorption. During full-scale 

testing conducted at the Hayden 

(Idaho) Regional WWTP, this system 

achieved monthly average effluent TP 

concentrations between 0.009 and 

0.016 mg/L (deBarbadillo et al., 2011). 

More about adsorption mechanisms in 

phosphorus removal is presented later. 

The second two-stage filtration 

option allows for the use of either 

iron-based, such as that supplied by 

Asahi Kasei Chemicals Corporation, 

or aluminum-based metal salts, such 

as DynaSand ® filters from Parkson 

Corporation. This system has achieved 

0.01 mg/L average effluent TP at full 

scale at the Stamford and Walton 

WWTPs in New York (USEPA, 2007). 

Membrane bioreactor 

A membrane bioreactor (MBR) 

replaces secondary clarifiers with 

membrane tanks with bundles of thin, 

semipermeable tubes or sheets that 

form a barrier to separate particles 

from water in the mixed liquor. Because 

a MBR process can operate at much 

higher mixed liquor suspended solids 

(MLSS) concentrations (6,000 to 8,000 

mg/L), the volume of aeration basins 

can be reduced significantly to achieve 

the same sludge retention time (SRT) as 

a conventional activated sludge (CAS) 

process. Compared with a secondary 

clarifier, the membrane tank of a 

MBR system will have a much smaller 

footprint. Therefore, an MBR system 

can greatly reduce footprint when 

compared to a CAS system. 

Similar to the conventional treatment 

process, biological methods and/ 

or metal salts can be used to convert 

soluble phosphorus to phosphorus-laden 

biosolids or particulate forms in order 

for the membranes to separate them from 

water. In Arapahoe County, Colorado, 

the Lone Tree Water Reclamation 

Facility uses an MBR process to achieve 

an effluent TP of less than 0.05 mg/L 

(deBarbadillo et al., 2011). 

The Lagoon Lane WWTP, 

Bracebridge, Ontario, is another MBR 

facility where ferric is used to enhance 

phosphorus removal. On the basis of 

system operational data, the effluent TP 

Brantford, ON | Phone: 519-751-1080 | Fax: 519-751-0617 

WWW.ANTHRAFILTER.NET 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

47


concentration can be constantly below 

0.05 mg/L, if sufficient ferric is added 

into the process. 

For the Barrie Wastewater Treatment 

Facility (WWTF), Barrie, Ontario, the 

liquid treatment processes include a 

high purity oxygen process, secondary 

clarifiers, rotary biological contactors 

(RBCs) and traveling bridge single-media 

sand filters. Historical performance 

shows that the Barrie WWTF can reliably 

achieve effluent TP of 0.15 mg/L with 

the existing sand filters operating at their 

rated capacity. Under the Lake Simcoe 

Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, the 

Barrie WWTF needs to produce effluent 

with a TP limit of 0.1 mg/L. In order to 

reliably meet 0.1 mg/L effluent TP, the 

City of Barrie is currently conducting an 

engineering design assignment to retrofit 

one existing secondary clarifier into an 

MBR process. This MBR train will treat 

a portion of the total flow to achieve 

ultra-low TP concentration of 0.05 mg/L 

and below, and the MBR effluent will 

be blended with the remaining sand 

filtration effluent to meet the effluent TP 

concentration of 0.1 mg/L. 

Tertiary low-pressure 

membrane filtration 

Low-pressure membrane filtration 

can also be used as a tertiary step to 

polish the secondary clarifier effluent. 

Microfiltration (MF) membranes have 

approximately 0.2 microgram (μm) 

pores, and ultrafiltration (UF) membranes 

have approximately 0.02-μm pores. 

Both MF and UF can be used to provide 

tertiary filtration treatment to reliably 

FIGURE 1 

achieve TP concentration of 0.05 mg/L. 

UF membranes are used at the Keswick 

Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), 

Regional Municipality of York, Ontario, 

to provide tertiary phosphorus removal. 

The Regional Municipality of 

York, Ontario, is currently conducting 

engineering design for a water 

reclamation center (WRC) as part of 

the Upper York Sewage Solution (UYSS) 

project. Tertiary membrane filtration is 

used to treat the secondary effluent to 

achieve TP concentration of 0.05 mg/L; 

its effluent will then be further polished 

by an RO facility. 

Reverse osmosis 

RO is a high-pressure membrane 

process. The pores in an RO membrane 

are much smaller than those in lowpressure 

membranes. Due to membrane 

surface chemistry, charged wastewater 

constituents (ions) are blocked or rejected 

by the membrane. Molecules larger than 

the pores are rejected by size exclusion. 

Except at very low pH, orthophosphate 

has a negative charge; therefore, it can 

be removed from wastewater using 

RO membranes. Of the treatment 

technologies being considered for 

phosphorus removal to ultra-low levels, 

RO has demonstrated the lowest effluent 

concentrations. However, due to their 

higher capital and operating costs, RO 

facilities are usually only selected after 

ruling out less expensive alternatives. 

The WRC of the UYSS project is 

currently under engineering design. 

The Individual Environmental 

Assessment (IEA) process recommended 

Process flow diagram of new adsorption and recovery process to achieve ultra-low TP. 


that RO be used to further lower the 

tertiary membrane filtration effluent for 

the project to consistently achieve the 

ultra-low TP limit of 0.02 mg/L. 

New technology include phosphorus 

recovery: Media adsorption 

Recent work suggests that adsorption 

is an important part of the phosphorus 

removal mechanism, even when using 

chemical precipitation. Work by Smith et 

al. (2008) indicates that tertiary removal 

of phosphorus by metal salts involves 

co-precipitation of phosphate along 

with the formation of metal hydroxide 

floc complexes and adsorption of 

phosphate onto the hydrous metal oxide 

floc structure. Recent advances include 

further development of reactive filtration 

options whereby sand filter media is 

coated with iron oxide to promote 

phosphorus adsorption. 

Processes using adsorbent media 

(instead of adsorbent floc as described 

above) have the advantages of consistent 

removal of phosphorus to low 

concentrations, minimal sludge formation, 

simple recovery of phosphorus and ease of 

system maintenance. However, adsorbents, 

such as activated alumina and iron oxides, 

are not widely used. This is most likely the 

result of slow phosphorus removal rates 

and non-selectivity for phosphate over 

other competing anions requiring large 

volumes of adsorbent and large system 

footprints and low resistance to acids and 

alkalis that inhibit repeated removal and 

in-situ regeneration cycles of the media. 

A new adsorbent media was developed 

by Asahi Kasei Chemical Corporation 

(Asahi), along with an integrated 

phosphorus adsorption, desorption 

and recovery system to overcome the 

shortcomings mentioned above. Two 

unique aspects of this technology are: i) 

its ability to be regenerated in-situ; and 

ii) no iron or aluminum chemistry that 

might compete with phosphorus recovery 

alternatives (such as struvite recovery). 

To demonstrate the capability of the new 

media in treating municipal wastewater 

for TP removal, Black & Veatch 

conducted a pilot test on secondary 

clarifier effluent at the Lawrence WWTP, 

Lawrence, Kansas, during the first half of 

2010 (Fitzpatrick et al. 2010). A process 

flow diagram for the system is presented 

on Figure 1. During the adsorption 

process, filtered effluent is passed through 

the adsorption towers, and phosphate 



ions are efficiently captured on the media. 

Once the capacity of a media bed is 

exhausted, the phosphorus is recovered by 

first passing an alkaline solution through 

the tower to desorb the phosphate ions. 

The phosphate in the alkaline desorbing 

solution is precipitated by adding 

calcium hydroxide (lime) to form calcium 

phosphate. The mixture is then pumped 

through a solids-liquid separator to 

capture the phosphate-rich solids, while 

the filtrate (alkaline aqueous solute) is 

reused in the desorption process. 

The system is configured with three 

columns and operated in a ‘carrousel’ 

fashion. Two columns are operated in series 

for phosphorus adsorption, while parallel 

operations on the third column recover 

phosphorus from its previous adsorption 

cycle. When phosphorus breakthrough 

is predicted in the first column, influent 

flow is diverted directly to the second 

column, which switches to serve as the 

primary column; the third column is placed 

into service as the secondary column in 

series, while the original first column 

undergoes phosphorus desorption and 

media regeneration. After regeneration, 

the original first column is placed on 

standby awaiting the next cycle. With this 

arrangement, the secondary column is 

always the most highly regenerated one, 

serving as a polishing unit to the primary 

column to prevent phosphorus from 

bleeding through the system. 

The Black & Veatch pilot test 

demonstrated that the final effluent 

orthophosphate and TP were consistently 

below 0.01 mg/L and 0.1 mg/L, 

respectively. The pilot testing results also 

indicate that the phosphorus content of 

the recovered solids generally exceeded 

28% phosphorus pentoxide (P 2 

O 5 

) 

content, and metal levels were well below 

the maximum allowable concentrations 

established by regulatory agencies. 

The use of the new adsorbent media 

and the in situ regeneration process 

appear to be promising technology for 

removing and recovering phosphorus as a 

high grade fertilizer product from WWTP 

effluents. One of the main reasons for the 

efficiency of this recovery process appears 

to be the high selectivity of the media to 

phosphate ions compared to other ions in 

the effluent. This unique ability to almost 

exclusively adsorb phosphate appears to 

explain why the recovered solids have such 

high phosphorus content and may also 

partially explain their low metal content. 

References 

deBarbadillo C., Barnard J., Levesque S. 

and Fitzpatrick J. (2011). Reaching 

new lows. Water Environment & 

Technology, 23(10), 52-55. 

Smith S., Takacs I., Murthy S., 

Daigger G. and Szabo A. (2008). 

Phosphate complexation model 

and its implications for chemical 

phosphorus removal. Water 

Environment Research, 80(5), 

428-437. 

Fitzpatrick J., Aoki, H., Koh S., 

deBarbadillo C., Midorikawa I, 

Miyazaki M., Omori A. and Shimizu 

T. (2010). First US pilot of a new 

media for phosphorus removal 

and recovery (EPA 910-R-07-002). 

Proceedings of the Water Environment 

Federation WEFTEC 2010. 

USEPA, 2007. Advanced wastewater 

treatment to achieve low 

concentration of phosphorus, EPA 

Region 10. 

Putting the 

SMART back 

in filtration. 

Watch the video to see how 

our innovations make it possible. 

parkson.com/hybridvideo 

A Hybrid Filter 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

49


The City of Barrie: 

Moving Beyond Tertiary Treatment 

Stricter provincial TP effluent limits driving a multi-level treatment approach 

to comply with loading requirements. 

BY SANDY COULTER, B.SC., STEW PATTERSON, P.ENG., JOHN THOMPSON, P.ENG., AND EDGAR TOVILLA, P.ENG., THE CITY OF BARRIE. 

Ontario’s Growth Plan establishes 

a population forecast of 210,000 by 

2031 for the City of Barrie. This is a 

significant increase from the City’s 

current population of approximately 

142,000. As a result, the City of 

Barrie has implemented a planning 

process to account for this population 

increase and nutrient loadings increase 

to its Wastewater Treatment Facility 

(WwTF). The treated effluent is required 

to meet effluent discharge limits as 

established by the Ministry of the 

Environment and Climate Change’s 

(MOECC) Environmental Compliance 

Approval (ECA) and the more stringent 

requirements for Total Phosphorus (TP) 

under the 2008 Lake Simcoe Protection 

Act (LSPA) and its 2010 Phosphorus 

Reduction Strategy (PRS). 

The City of Barrie’s WwTF is an 

advanced tertiary treatment system with 

final discharge to Kempenfelt Bay in 

Lake Simcoe. It was last upgraded and 

expanded in 2011 to its current capacity 

of 76 million litres per day (MLD) 

average flow. Unfortunately, this upgrade 

(including detailed design and tendering) 

was initiated and completed prior to the 

FIGURE 1 

enacting of the LSPA and PRS legislation. 

Therefore, it was not possible to include 

these new requirements in the design. 

The planned expansion provided for a TP 

design objective of 0.15 mg/L including 

a safety factor to ensure compliance with 

the previous ECA’s average monthly 

concentration limit of 0.18 mg/L, but 

the design was not meant to provide 

compliance with the 0.10 mg/L annual 

concentration limit specified by the PRS. 

The WwTF consists of the following 

treatment unit operations: screening, grit 

removal, primary clarification, activated 

sludge process using high purity oxygen, 

secondary clarification, tertiary rotating 

biological contactors, chemically-assisted 

sand filtration and UV disinfection. 

This treatment train, operating at its 

current levels of approximately 52 MLD, 

is capable of achieving its annual TP 

concentration of 0.10 mg/L. Through 

optimization efforts the WwTF has 

been successful in achieving an average 

of approximately 0.067 mg/L over the 

last 18 months. Nonetheless, the total 

loading imposed under the PRS of 2,774 

kg-P/year imply that the City needs to, 

consistently and progressively, reduce the 

The City of Barrie’s wastewater treatment facility (WwTF). 

TP concentrations as population growth 

produces incremental increase in annual 

TP loadings. 

Some of the non-point sources options 

the City may explore in the future 

include: implementing new or retrofits 

of stormwater management (SWM) 

facilities, e.g., the on-going Upper York 

Sewage Solutions EA (York Region, 2014); 

or the application of agricultural best 

management practices, e.g. ,Town of New 

Tecumseth’s Tottenham Sewage Treatment 

Plant (MOECC, 2014); or TP offset 

measures to be legislated under the LSPA, 

which are being explored by the Lake 

Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 

among other participants (Tovilla, 2015). 

While achieving more stringent TP 

requirements through offsets with nonpoint 

TP alternatives remains a future 

option for the City (pending its corresponding 

planning process and potential 

approval by the Province), the City of 

Barrie, in 2013, decided to evaluate different 

technologies for low effluent TP at its 

WwTF as a point-source type of solution. 

A study was conducted to provide recommendation 

on a preferred technology 

solution. The scope of the study was to 

complete a technology assessment for effluent 

TP using ultra filtration (UF) membranes 

with a number of configurations 

and pilot testing. At the initial assessment 

process, the pilot testing results showed 

that UF membrane technology could 

consistently achieved 0.02 mg/L of TP on 

average with tertiary filter effluent. The 

subsequent objectives of the study were: 

• to identify a design basis for nutrient 

removal (TP) strategy development; 

• develop a long list of strategies for 

nutrient removal; 

• screen the long list of strategies and 

establish a short list of strategies; and 

• evaluate the short-listed strategies and 

identify a preferred strategy. 




The strategies to evaluate UF membrane 

configurations were grouped in two: 

• Group 1: Using membrane (in a tertiary 

membrane filtration configuration) to 

polish a portion of the existing sand 

filter effluent or RBC effluent and 

blending the membrane effluent with 

the remaining sand filter effluent; and 

• Group 2: Using membranes (in 

a membrane bioreactor process 

configuration) to treat a portion of the 

flows in parallel to the existing sand 

filters, and blend the effluent streams 

from the membranes and the sand filter. 

Value-added workshops were organized to 

evaluate specific treatment configurations. 

Some of the participants at these 

workshops included: the City of Barrie, the 

Ontario Clean Water Agency, AECOM, 

CH2M, WSP, GHD and General Electric. 

The Group 1 strategies were further 

broken down in the following: 

• Strategy 1A: Retrofit one sand filter 

channel to house tertiary membrane units 

• Strategy 1B: Retrofit UV channels to 

house tertiary membrane filtration units 

• Strategy 1C: New tertiary membrane 

filtration facility 

• Strategy 1D: Tertiary membrane 

filtration located on top of secondary 

clarifiers 

• Strategy 1E: Tertiary membrane 

filtration to treat RBC effluent 

The Group 2 strategies were identified as: 

• Strategy 2A: Retrofit one UNOX/ 

secondary clarifier train to membrane 

bioreactor (MBR). 

• Strategy 2B: Retrofit one UNOX/ 

secondary clarifier train to MBR with 

new membrane tanks 

• Strategy 2C: Tertiary membrane 

filtration followed by MBR conversion 

• Strategy 2D: Tertiary MBR. 

Both screening and evaluation criteria 

were developed for this process. The 

screening criteria primarily concentrated 

in having a proven technology, and its 

reliability to meet current and future 

regulatory requirements. The evaluation 

criteria included concepts such as: ability 

to provide stable nitrification, project 

construction schedule, ease of expansion, 

flexibility, reliability, ease of operation, 

operational impact during construction, 

footprint and impact on site use, impact 

to the public, capital cost, O&M costs, 

and ultimate cost. 

FIGURE 2 

Conceptual process flow diagram for the MBR retrofit strategy. 1 

Note 1. Elements of this diagram are for illustrative purposes 

and may not represent the actual process flow diagram. 

TABLE 1 TP annual average concentration required to meet annual loading limit. 

Rated Capacity [MLD] TP Loading [kg/year] Compliance Limit [mg/L] Design Objective [mg/L] 

76 2,774 0.100 0.080 

102 2,774 0.075 0.060 

150 2,774 0.050 0.040 

As a result of the screening and 

evaluation process, the MBR retrofit 

(Strategy 2A) was recommended as the 

preferred strategy (CH2M Hill, 2013). 

It was concluded that the MBR train can 

provide stable and reliable nitrification 

including having a minimum green space 

construction. Further, the MBR provides 

a modular expansion approach to achieve 

rated capacities beyond 76 MLD, noting 

that it reduces the hydraulic load on the 

remaining secondary treatment system 

significantly (by approximately 40%). 

It was also revealed that the MBR Retrofit 

would have a minimum impact on the 

plant operation during construction. 

Finally, the results also showed the lowest 

capital cost, moderate O&M costs and 

the lowest ultimate cost to achieve future 

planned expansions. 

The study results noted that the MBR 

retrofit strategy could have a design 

objective as low as 0.04 mg/L of TP if 

the design looks beyond the currently 

approved 76 MLD and up to a 150 MLD 

capacity (provided completion of the 

planning process in the event of a future 

capacity expansion), in order to maintain 

the 2,774 kg/year TP loading. 

For more information about the 

City of Barrie’s WwTF and the projects 

discussed in this article, please 

contact Sandy Coulter at 

sandy.coulter@barrie.ca or Stew 

Patterson at stew.patterson@barrie.ca. 

References: 

CH2M Hill. (2013). Nutrient 

Removal Strategy for the Barrie 

Wastewater Treatment Facility 

(WwTF), City of Barrie. 

MOECC - ECA7550-9F8HZA 

(2014). New Tecumseth’s 

Tottenham STP, Retrieved from: 

www.accessenvironment.ene. 

gov.on.ca/AEWeb/ae/GoSearch. 

action?search=advanced 

[10 Jul 2015]. 

Tovilla, E. (2015) Environmental 

Approvals Branch’s considerations 

when evaluating water quality 

offsets for new or re-rating of 

municipal or industrial sewage 

treatment plants, WEAO 

Influents, Spring 2015, pp. 34-35. 

York Region (2014) Upper York 

Sewage Solutions - Environmental 

Assessment Executive Summary, 

Retrieved from: www.uyssolutions. 

ca/en/resourcesGeneral/01- 

ExecutiveSummary.pdf 

[10 Jul 2015]. 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

51


Optimizing Tertiary Treatment at the 

Lindsay Water Pollution Control Plant 

BY PAULA STEEL, P. ENG., ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING AND KYLE MURRAY, MASC., ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING 

DAVID KERR, P. GEO., MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CITY OF KAWARTHA LAKES AND 

JEFF JANISZEWSKI, OPERATOR AT LINDSAY WPCP, CITY OF KAWARTHA LAKES 

Background 

The Lindsay Water Pollution Control 

Plant (WPCP) services the community 

of Lindsay, which is part of the City 

of Kawartha Lakes. The WPCP was 

originally constructed in 1962-1964 

as a facultative lagoon. The plant 

has undergone a series of upgrades 

throughout the years with the most 

recent occurring in 1998. In its current 

configuration, the Lindsay WPCP is 

an extended aeration process with 

tertiary treatment and UV disinfection 

with a rated capacity of 21,500 m 3 /d. 

Chemical precipitation using alum is 

practiced in the secondary clarifiers, 

with ballasted high-rate flocculation 

used for tertiary treatment. 

During the most recent upgrades, 

The Ministry of the Environment and 

Climate Change (MOECC) identified 

that the effluent receiver, the Scugog 

River, was considered a Policy 2 

receiver in regards to phosphorus. 

A receiver is considered to be Policy 2 

if it exceeds the Provincial Water 

Quality Objective for Total Phosphorus 

(TP) (0.03 mg/L for streams). 

To minimize further increases in 

the concentration of TP within the 

Scugog River, the MOECC applied 

stringent effluent limits to the 

FIGURE 1 

Actiflo TM units at the Lindsay WPCP 

amended Certificate of Approval (C of A). 

The effluent objective and limit for total 

phosphorus (TP) was set at 0.15 and 

0.2 mg/L, respectively. This required the 

implementation of tertiary treatment, 

as secondary treatment with chemical 

precipitation can typically only meet an 

effluent TP concentration of 0.5 mg/L 

(MOE Design Guidelines for Sewage 

Works, 2008). 

The Actiflo TM process provided by 

Veolia Water Technologies was selected 

as the preferred tertiary treatment 

solution during the 1998 upgrades. 

This was the first implementation of this 

process for tertiary treatment in Ontario. 

The Lindsay WPCP utilizes two units 

operated in parallel; each is designed 

for a maximum hydraulic capacity of 

15,050 m 3 /d. Figure 1 presents a photo 

of the units at the Lindsay WPCP. 

This process is a high-rate 

clarification process that uses ballasted 

flocculation to achieve high levels 

of solids and TP removal in a small 

footprint. The units employed at the 

Lindsay WPCP have a combined 

footprint which is approximately half 

of what would have been required for 

deep bed media filtration and one third 

of what would have been required for 

shallow bed media filtration. 

The Actiflo TM treatment process utilizes 

four stages: 

1. Coagulation – A coagulant is added 

to the secondary effluent upstream of 

the flocculation/clarification unit to 

encourage agglomeration of suspended 

solids, improving settling. At the 

Lindsay WPCP, coagulant is added at 

a collection chamber just outside of 

the tertiary treatment building. 

2. Injection – Both microsand and 

a flocculent (polyelectrolyte) 

are added to secondary effluent 

and mechanically mixed within 

the injection tank. The injected 

microsand ballasts the flocs formed 

as a result of the coagulation stage. 

3. Maturation – Flocs are gently mixed 

using a mechanical mixer during an 

approximately four-minute hydraulic 

retention time to encourage the 

further agglomeration of solids and 

the development of flocs. 

4. Counter Current Lamella 

Clarification - Lamellar plates 

inclined at 60° angles increase the 

efficiency of settling, allowing flocs 

to precipitate to the bottom where 

they are subsequently collected by 

a sludge hopper and pumped to 

hydrocyclones located above the 

injection tank. The microsand is then 

separated from the sludge and reused 

through the process. The hydraulic 

retention time in the clarification step 

is approximately two minutes. 

Figure 2 illustrates the configuration of 

the process. 

Historical performance 

The TP removal achieved at the Lindsay 

WPCP since the treatment units have 

been installed has been excellent. 

Figure 3a presents the average annual 

effluent TP concentrations between 2001 

and 2013 with comparisons made to 

both the C of A imposed objectives and 

limits. Figure 3b presents the average 




FIGURE 2 

Actiflo TM Process 

(Veolia Water Technologies) 

To sludge 

treatment 

Hydrocyclone 

RECIRCULATION: the sludge is pumped to the hydrocyclone to be separated from the microsand. 

The clean microsand is returned into the injection tank to minimize loss; the sludge is continuously 

removed for further processing 

5 

Coagulant 

Acid or lime 

Clarified water 

Raw water 

COAGULATION STAGE: a coagulant 

such as an iron or aluminium salt is 

added to the raw water. 

1 

2 

Polymer 

INJECTION TANK: the flocs produced during the 

coagulation stage are ballasted by the dense microsand, 

which is continuously reinjected into the process. 

3 

4 

MATURATION TANK: fitted with 

a mixer designed to produce the 

optimum velocity gradients, it 

allows flocs to swell and mature. 

COUNTER CURRENT LAMELLA 

CLARIFICATION: it allows a 

fast settling of the microsand 

ballasted sludge. 

annual effluent carbonaceous five-day 

biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD 5 

) 

and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 

concentrations during the same time 

period. C of A imposed limits for both 

parameters are also presented 

for comparison. 

The tertiary process has consistently 

produced effluent well below the effluent 

objective since it was installed and 

commissioned in 1998. Annual average 

effluent TP, TSS and cBOD 5 

concentrations 

have been well below the imposed limits. 

The objective concentrations for TP 

and cBOD 5 

have also consistently been 

met. The effluent objective for TSS was 

exceeded once in 2001. 

As part of ongoing operational 

improvements, the Lindsay WPCP 

have completed a process optimization 

investigation of their existing tertiary 

treatment system to determine if they 

could further improve the performance 

or realize some operational savings. 

Associated Engineering served as the 

Overall Responsible Operator during this 

time and provided process support and 

advisory services during the optimization 

activities. The following sections describe 

some of the approaches taken. 

Investigation into optimized 

polymer type and dosage 

Until recently, the polymer type used 

during the injection phase was the same 

used when the system was commissioned 

in 1998. WPCP operations staff 

completed jar testing with support 

from the vendor to investigate various 

alternative polymer types. Five different 

polymers at varying dosages were 

investigated. As a result of these tests an 

anionic polymer, Hydrex TM 5186 (Veolia 

Water Technologies), at a dose of 0.25 

mg/L was selected, resulting in improved 

performance and reduced costs. 

Investigations into optimized 

coagulant dosing 

The WPCP historically used alum 

for coagulation. The effectiveness of 

alum was noted to decrease during 

the winter months. Due to the shallow 

aeration tanks (which are equipped 

An Overall Responsible Operator is a person designated by the owner of a Facility. 

The purpose of this designation is to ensure that there is always someone available who 

can direct other operators and respond to emergencies. In most cases, an ORO must 

hold an operations license that is the same class or higher than the facility, but a P.Eng. 

may also be designated as ORO for up to six months without a valid license. 

(Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change) 

with mechanical aeration) and the long 

HRTs, wastewater temperatures are 

often as low as 2 °C when leaving the 

secondary clarifiers. The units originally 

dosed alum at a collection chamber 

outside of the tertiary treatment building 

into the cold secondary effluent. It was 

discovered during discussions with Veolia 

that, based on similar observations at 

other plants, the most effective resolution 

was to move the alum dosing further 

upstream to provide a longer contact 

time which can counteract some of the 

negative effects of the low temperature. 

During jar testing it was demonstrated 

that increased contact time improved 

effluent quality. The City is planning 

to run a trial in the winter to confirm if 

dosing at the clarifier effluent rather than 

at the collection chamber upstream of 

the injection tanks would improve alum 

effectiveness. 

Retrofitting the recycle pumps 

The recycle pumps used for conveying 

settled sludge to the hydrocyclones 

for separation of sludge from the 

microsand were originally installed 

with water seals. It was determined 

that these could be replaced with 

mechanical seals, which would 

eliminate the need for water and reduce 

ancillary equipment. Operators have 

converted one pump to mechanical 

seals and are currently piloting the unit 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

53


FIGURE 3A 

Average annual effluent TP concentrations 

FIGURE 3B 

Average annual effluent cBOD 5 

and TSS concentrations 

to determine if any adverse impacts 

arise. If no issues are encountered 

the remaining three pumps will be 

modified as well. 

Mixing speed optimization 

– Injection and maturation tanks 

The mixers in the injection tanks and 

the maturation tank were found to not 

be operating at their proper speeds. 

Ebb 

The injection mixer is required to 

operate at full speed at all times to 

ensure that a rapid mixing of the 

incoming flow with the sand and 

polymer is achieved. The speed of 

the maturation mixers are to be 

modulated depending upon incoming 

flow: the mixer speed should ramp 

down as the flow increases to ensure 

optimum energy use. Mixers in the 

Flow 

injection tank were operating below 

their recommended speed and mixers 

in the maturation tank were operating 

above their recommended speed. 

WPCP operations staff have modified 

the operation of the mixers to match 

the vendor’s recommendations. WPCP 

staff are monitoring performance to 

determine whether any improvements 

are achieved. 

Microsand size 

It was discovered through sampling tests 

with the vendor that the microsand being 

used in the system was smaller than what 

the manufacturer recommends, which 

was likely resulting in slower settling 

velocities. Sand carry-over has been 

noted in the effluent channels upstream 

and downstream of the UV system. Plant 

operating staff members have purchased 

a larger microsand that is consistent with 

the manufacturer’s recommendations 

and will monitor performance to assess 

any improvements realized. 

Consulting • Engineering • Construction • Operation I www.bv.com 


If the challenge involves water, we’re up for it. 

We offer you a world of expertise, with value for today 

and foresight for tomorrow, for all of your unique water 

challenges. We’re building a world of difference. Together. 

Toronto 905-747-8506 | WeKnowWater@BV.com 

Conclusions 

The Lindsay WPCP was the first 

implementation of the Actiflo TM process 

for tertiary treatment in Ontario. 

Since being commissioned in 1998, the 

system has continually produced effluent 

with TP, cBOD 5 

and TSS concentrations 

well below the imposed limits. This type 

of tertiary treatment system is a viable 

alternative to filtration, with the added 

benefit of a footprint approximately 

one half to one third the size. Planned 

optimization efforts by Lindsay WPCP 

staff will hopefully yield improved 

performance and minimize operating 

costs in future. 


THE PIPE THAT FITS 

IN SO MANY WAYS. 

TM 

NovaForm 

PVC Liner 

The sewer & culvert rehabilitation solution in the sizes you need. 

Aging sewer and water infrastructure has led to 

ever increasing maintenance costs for 

municipalities. The engineers at IPEX recognized 

this development and responded with NovaForm 

PVC Liner, a product that brings the benefits of 

factory-made PVC pipe to the North American 

trenchless pipe rehabilitation industry. 

A Size for Every Job 

Available in the sizes you need: 6” to 30” 

and industry-standard dimension ratios 

DR 35 and DR 41. 

Durability of PVC 

Excellent chemical and abrasion resistant properties. 

Consistent Production 

Factory-made, quality-controlled and tested to 

stringent ASTM standards. 

Peace of Mind 

IPEX has been a leading manufacturer of PVC 

piping systems for more than 50 years and 

developing trenchless PVC solutions for the past 20 

years. Plus, we back everything we sell with in-field 

technical support throughout North America. 

To learn more, call us toll free at 1-866-473-9462 

or visit www.ipexinc.com 

Products manufactured by IPEX Inc. NovaForm TM is a trademark of IPEX Branding Inc.

Risks Associated with 

Application of Municipal 

Biosolids to Agricultural 

Lands in a Canadian Context 

By Dr. Jorge E. Loyo-Rosales 

and Dr. Lynda H. McCarthy, Ryerson University 

The Canadian Water Network (CWN) 

commissioned a review of the current 

knowledge on the occurrence, fate, and 

potential risks of emerging substances 

of concern (ESOCs) and pathogens 

present in biosolids after application to 

agricultural land, especially in conditions 

relevant to Canada. The review will serve 

as the basis for a national consultation 

to be conducted by CWN’s Canadian 

Municipal Water Consortium on this 

topic in the context of the sustainability 

of biosolids land application. 

ESOCs and pathogens are the main 

focus of the review because existing 

regulations do not explicitly address 

these newly identified chemicals and 

pathogens. Recent advances in analytical 

chemistry have allowed the detection in 

biosolids of a large number of substances 

(ESOCs), some of them present in low 

concentrations, but whose potential 

impact to public and environmental 

health is not yet determined. 

Similarly, the development of new 

detection and identification methods 

has led to the recognition of additional 

pathogens in biosolids. In addition, 

changes in water treatment technologies, 

and the introduction of new pathogenic 

organisms, either from distant 

geographical locations or through 

evolution of the microorganisms 

themselves, could also play a 

significant role in the emergence of 

pathogens in biosolids. 

The review covers a wide variety of 

topics related to ESOCs and pathogens 

in biosolids-amended soils. Topics 

covered include: risk assessment, 

the effects of sludge treatment on 

concentration and viability of ESOCs 

and pathogens, their fate in soils 

after biosolids application, biological 

impact studies, and public acceptance 

of biosolids land application. This 

article summarizes some of the general 

findings of the review. 

Risk assessments: Few risk 

assessments have been conducted 

for ESOCs in the biosolids land 

application context, and they suggest 

that ESOCs pose a low risk to human 

and environmental health. More risk 

assessments have been conducted for 

pathogens, and their risk is considered 

low or practically nonexistent for the 

general population. Pathogens are 

only considered an issue in worst-case 

occupational scenarios, such as biosolids 

applicators with no protective equipment. 

Sludge treatment: The review notes 

that sludge treatment generally results 

in a net reduction of ESOCs mass 

and effects (e.g., estrogenicity), and in 

the number of pathogenic organisms. 

However, the magnitude of the 

reduction depends on factors such as 

the nature of the specific compounds or 

organisms, and the type and conditions 

of treatment. For example, ESOCs such 

as carbamazepine, and pathogens such 

as enteroviruses are resistant to some or 

most treatment methods. 

Environmental fate: The fate of 

biosolids-related ESOCs and pathogens 

after land application is a complex, 

site-specific phenomenon driven by 

the combination of a large number of 

factors, ranging from the properties 

of the ESOCs or pathogens and the 

soils, to environmental variables such 

as temperature and soil moisture 

content, and the biosolids application 

methods. Therefore, the ultimate fate 

of individual ESOCs and pathogens is 

very variable, with some (e.g., triclosan, 

Cryptosporidium) persisting in the soil 

for long periods of time, while others 

are very mobile (e.g., iopromide) or 

degradable. However, studies generally 

conclude that most of the compounds 

typically found in biosolids do not reach 

the groundwater after land application, 

and that their concentrations in tile 

drainage and surface runoff tend to be 

much lower than typical concentrations 

found in WWTP effluents. 

ESOCs uptake by plants and 

bioaccumulation by earthworms: 

Both phenomena have been clearly 

demonstrated, although they might 

have been overestimated by the use of 

proof-of-concept methodologies that do 

not reflect relevant environmental and 

agricultural conditions. In addition, 

accumulation of ESOCs in soil, 

crops, or soil organisms might not be 

desirable, but their sole presence does 

not constitute proof of negative impact. 

Antibiotic resistance: The presence 

of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) in 

sludge and biosolids is well documented, 

but incidence tends to be lower than in 

other environmental compartments. The 

risk of antibiotic-resistance gene transfer 

in soil is considered to be low, and 

land-applied biosolids are not expected 

to affect the incidence of antibiotic 

resistance in pathogens. 



Impact on biota: Soil amendment 

with biosolids at agronomic rates has 

a positive impact on plants. Studies on 

invertebrates (e.g., earthworms) show 

mixed results, with negative impact 

being associated with high heavy 

metal concentrations, ammonia, pH 

or salinity levels. Microbial biomass 

and activity increase, except when 

high metal concentrations are present, 

but the ecological significance of these 

effects has not been elucidated. 

Use of omics and biomarkers: 

Although ‘omics’ technologies have the 

potential to improve the study of toxicity 

effects resulting from simultaneous 

exposure to multiple chemicals, the 

development of antibiotic resistance, 

and ecosystem health assessment, their 

use in the biosolids field is still in its 

infancy. The use of biomarkers, such 

as estrogenicity, can provide valuable 

information on the possible effects of 

biosolids to biota without the need 

for exhaustive chemical analysis. 

However, research is still necessary 

to relate the responses of biomarker 

tests to actual impact on individuals 

and populations. 

The overall conclusion of the review 

is that a different strategy is necessary 

to determine whether ESOCs in the 

biosolids land-application context affect 

human and/or environmental health. 

This new strategy should be based on 

the evaluation of ecosystem health, 

and it should take into account ESOCs 

in other contexts to provide a more 

holistic perspective. For example, if a 

chemical is banned or its use restricted, 

its concentrations in biosolids will 

eventually decrease and investment in 

additional treatment to eliminate such 

chemical might be unnecessary. 

From a public health perspective, 

conducting scientifically-based 

inquiries following reports of adverse 

health effects, especially by residents 

neighbouring biosolids-amended fields, 

would be a significant contribution 

to elucidate the possible links of these 

health effects to biosolids exposure. 

Finally, the strategy should be 

designed considering other factors 

affecting the sustainability of biosolids 

land application, such as energy 

demand and greenhouse gas emissions. 

This is especially important when 

comparing land application to other 

beneficial uses for biosolids, such 

as gas co-generation and recovery 

from anaerobic digestion, and power 

generation from incineration in wasteto-energy 

(WtE) systems. 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

57

MICHAEL PAYNE 

Wins Biosolids Award for Public 

Outreach and Knowledge Transfer 

Today in Ontario, there is greater 

demand for non-agricultural source 

materials (NASM) than there are 

available biosolids. That is in large 

part due to the work of Michael Payne. 

During his 20 years at the Ontario 

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and 

Rural Affairs – and in the past four and 

a half years as Residuals and Biosolids 

Utilization Specialist for Black Lake 

Environmental – he devoted his time 

to outreach and training through 

presentations, written materials and 

client consultations. 

“We have seen a lot 

more uptake from farmers,” 

confirms Payne, who was 

recognized with an award 

for Public Outreach and 

Knowledge Transfer during 

the 2014 WEAO Awards 

Presentation for Exemplary 

Residuals & Biosolids 

Management earlier this year. 

“Government and industry are 

now out there talking about 

the practice, the research, the 

regulations and the fact that 

we see no negative impacts, only the 

positive, when the rules are followed.” 

Prior to 1990, there were few 

research projects or field trials on the 

utilization of biosolids on agricultural 

land. Since then Soil and Crop 

Associations, Agriculture and Agri-Food 

Canada, and the universities of Guelph 

and Ryerson have conducted research 

in this area. “Municipalities and the 

industry looked to answer the questions, 

did the field trials, and started to talk 

about them,” recalls Payne. 

In 1992, his boss at OMAFRA 

asked him to be the spokesperson for 

biosolids application on agricultural 

land in Eastern Ontario. “He said it 

wouldn’t take more than 5 to 10% of 

my time,” recalls Payne, who was a soil 

and crop specialist working with the 

farm community on crop, seed, and 

fertilizer recommendations. 

By 2000, when OMAFRA 

restructured, biosolids outreach 

was taking up most of his time and 

Payne’s position changed to Biosolids 

Utilization Specialist for the province. 

For the next 11 years, he was the 

Ministry’s lead on working with the 

research community in designing 

and following through on research 

projects at various institutions, 

including Agriculture and Agri-Food 

Canada. He worked with members 

GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY 

ARE NOW OUT THERE TALKING 

ABOUT THE PRACTICE, THE RESEARCH, 

THE REGULATIONS AND THE FACT 

THAT WE SEE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS, 

ONLY THE POSITIVE, WHEN THE 

RULES ARE FOLLOWED. 

of the industry – such as Wessuc and 

Terratec Environmental – who asked 

for assistance; spoke to municipal 

representatives; and gave presentations 

at conferences for organizations 

such as WEAO and the Professional 

Wastewater Operators (PWO). “To get 

that messaging out, I worked with the 

farm community, and with the soil and 

crop associations to do field trials,” 

adds Payne. “Within government, 

the team I was with produced fact 

sheets, information sheets, and a best 

management practices book.” He was 

also the Ministry’s lead on rewriting 

the regulations for NASM. As a result, 

procedures prior to application are 

more detailed than ever before, but at 

the same time, less onerous and more 

understandable to the farmer. 

All this work led to general 

acceptance of NASM application over 

time. In the 1990s, from 40 to 50% of 

biosolids in the province were landapplied. 

By the time Payne retired from 

OMAFRA in 2011, almost everything 

that was not incinerated was being 

land applied as liquid, dewatered 

solids, or as a commercial fertilizer 

after being further processed to meet 

Canadian Food Inspection Agency 

(CFIA) standards. (One of the regulatory 

constraints is that biosolids can only be 

used between certain dates, which means 

that biosolids are still heading 

for the landfill in the winter.) 

But the residuals and 

biosolids utilization specialist 

was not ready to hang up 

his hat. Realizing that there 

was still a need for his work, 

he founded Black Lake 

Environmental as a oneperson 

operation. As such, 

he provides the training for 

biosolids application on behalf 

of OMAFRA. “With the 

regulatory framework that was 

constructed, we now have licensing and 

certification for everyone involved in the 

land application,” he explains, “from the 

person who develops the NASM plan 

to set an application rate, to the person 

driving the tractor with the spreader 

behind it. That has added a significant 

amount of credibility to the industry.” 

Black Lake Environmental is also 

working on a number of research 

projects as well as with a consulting 

group on a municipal biosolids master 

plan. At the same time, Payne sits on 

a number of committees, including 

the WEAO’s Residual and Biosolids 

Committee and an International 

Standards Organization (ISO) group that 

is developing international standards for 

sewage treatment to generate biosolids 

for land application. 



Sizing Up Your I&I 

Detention Facility Needs 

BY ROBERTSON GIBB, B. ENG., AND PREYA BALGOBIN, P. ENG., R.V. ANDERSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED 

There are two basic approaches to 

combating problems arising from inflow 

and infiltration (I&I): address the cause 

by reducing extraneous flows at the 

source or treating the symptoms by 

increasing the hydraulic capacity and 

retention of the wastewater conveyance 

and treatment system. The ideal solution 

for I&I, though not entirely achievable 

in existing sewersheds, is to prevent 

the occurrence outright. This approach 

addresses cause of the I&I by: eliminating 

foundation drain and roof leader 

connections, minimizing inflow through 

manhole covers and completing repairs 

to leaking sewer joints. Unfortunately, 

elimination or reduction of I&I is only 

one part of the solution. Whether due 

to financial restrictions, regulatory 

concerns, or accelerated project deadlines 

in response to localized flooding, a 

more intensive solution of constructing 

a detention facility, complete with a 

pumping station may be required. 

After the task of reducing flows at the 

source is finished, a decision between 

the following options is needed: 

• in-system or end-of-line storage; 

• increase in the treatment plant 

hydraulic capacity; 

• an appropriate combination of both 

of the above; and 

• the incorporation of overflow 

mechanisms as a final safety valve. 

The ability to ‘treat’ the symptoms 

of I&I flow depends on the hydraulic 

capacity of a conveyance system. 

Without sufficient capacity, installation 

of downstream detention tanks will 

not combat against sewage-filled 

basements or raw sewage overflows. 

At the conceptual stage, a protection 

(or risk) level sought by the I&I control 

measures must be established, be it a 

20, 50 or 250-year storm. Any pinpoint 

bottlenecks noted through the hydraulic 

analysis can be addressed through 

conveyance remedial measures, such as 

larger diameter pipes, express sewers or 

diversion structures in the sewer system. 

A means to attenuate peak flow 

in the sewer system may be required 

if the inflow surpasses the hydraulic 

capacity over a large area of the sewer 

network, downstream pumping stations 

or select stages of the wastewater 

treatment facility. This paper will 

examine some I&I and storm water 

detention facility types to highlight 

design philosophies on I&I storage and 

pumping. The implications for project 

budgets, utility managers, operators 

and the engineering design team are 

also considered. 

Determining I&I facility type 

The physical and hydraulic constraints 

of each site will dictate the requirement 

for one of three typical storage 

scenarios, described below in the order 

of increasing tank complexity: 

• in-line storage without pumping, 

• in-line storage with post-event 

pumping, 

• elevated storage with large high-flow, 

non-clogging pumps. 

This is the critical stage where 

construction estimates can jump 

significantly. In an ideal scenario, the 

storage facility will allow for in-line 

storage, with no pumping requirements. 

For this to be achieved, the required 

storage volume must fit within the 

following confines: 

• A high water level in the tank: 

This level is set to ensure that the 

hydraulic grade line upstream of the 

tank will not exceed a threshold that 

risks basement flooding or combined 

sewer overflows (CSOs). 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

59

• Low Water (Tank Bottom) level: 

This should be the lowest point that 

would still allow the tank to drain 

by gravity to a downstream portion 

of the sewershed after a storm event. 

• Site and Financial Constraints 

(utilities, buildings, property limits): 

The maximum storage depth is 

fixed by high and low water levels, 

so expanding the tank area is the 

only variable that can be increased 

to meet the storage requirements. 

If existing utilities, buildings or 

easements restrict the surface 

footprint, an in-line storage system 

may not be feasible. 

When in-line storage is not possible, 

the next option is in-line storage with 

post-storm event pumping. This tank 

configuration increases the bottom 

tank depth for increased storage, which 

sacrifices the ability for free draining 

after a storm event. Sump pumps, 

control panels, instrumentation and 

power supply are required. Fortunately, 

their standby and sizing requirements 

are reduced, as they are not relied upon 

to convey flow during the storm event. 

Pumps and discharge piping are sized 

to empty the tank within an acceptable 

time window after the storm, rather 

than to match the incoming flow rates. 

When a site is constricted both in 

terms of area and tank depth (i.e., due 

to existing groundwater conditions, 

bedrock, etc.), elevated storage is 

required. Engineering and construction 

budgets can increase significantly as the 

I&I pumps are sized to match the peak 

influent flow and the process controls and 

standby power requirements are similar 

to that of a raw sewage pumping station. 

Establishing tank access and 

cleaning methods 

Owners, operators and the design 

team must decide early in the design 

phase how cleaning will be done. 

Cleaning methods should be established 

for both the tanks and any required 

wetwell or sumps associated with the 

design. This ensures that the facility 

will include sufficient provisions for 

access buildings, ventilation, process 

controls and tank slopping. Failing 

to complete this step could result in 

an I&I detention system that places a 

high demand on staff time, is unsafe 

to operate, and/or has unacceptable 

odour impacts on the neighbouring 

environments. There are a variety of 

cleaning methods that do not require 

personnel to enter the tank. The 

following are some descriptions of some 

of these cleaning methods. 

Vacuum Flushing System: This 

patented process operates by storing a 

portion of the I&I flow within a flushing 

chamber, cast into the tank structure, 

as the tank is being filled. A diaphragm 

valve maintains this liquid under a 

vacuum condition as the tank is drained 

after the I&I event. When the tank is 

ready to be cleaned, the valve allows the 

vacuum to break, causing the column 

of water to fall and creating a flushing 

wave of water to remove debris from 

the bottom of the tank. This flushing 

system can be used for either circular 

or rectangular tanks and is therefore 

a preferred method for deep, large 

diameter CSO tanks. 

Tipping Bucket: This system 

operates by using an asymmetrical 

trough (bucket), suspended at the 

upstream side of a rectangular tank. 

The bucket spans the width of the tank 

and has bearing on either end. After a 

storm event, the system automatically 

pumps process or potable water into the 

bucket. Once the bucket gets filled to 

its tipping point, it tips, releasing a high 

velocity wave of water down the side 

P5-storage chart 

Tank constructed in restricted area 

of the tank and across the bottom to 

the sump at the opposite end. Control 

requirements are minimal: position 

switches and a solenoid valve to initiate 

the tank fill sequence. When designing 

flushing facilities with solenoid valves 

to fill a tipping bucket, it is important 

to protect against water hammer when 

the valve closes at the end of a flushing 

cycle. Depending on the supply pressure 

in the tipping bucket fill-water line, the 

sudden closing of the solenoid could 

create a significant water hammer in 

the system, which can be very loud 

and potentially damaging to new 

components. Consideration needs to be 

given to installation of a water hammer 

arrestor and a pressure-reducing valve 

upstream of the solenoid. 

Effluent water cleaning: For 

wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) 

that use open storage tanks for flow 

attenuation, an effluent water ring 

can be installed around the tank with 

multiple non-freeze hydrants to allow 

for manual cleaning using effluent 

hoses. Sufficient effluent water pumping 

capacity and walkway access must be 



Construction of I+I Tanks 

available to ensure safe and effective 

tank cleaning. Control methods (either 

manual or through SCADA) may be 

needed for boosting of the effluent 

water pressure during tank cleaning. 

In addition, sufficient volume should 

be available within any pressure tank 

that’s connected to the effluent water 

network to prevent excessive hose surges 

and pump cycling when tank cleaning 

occurs. Additional methods to facilitate 

cleaning include tank sloping to 

accommodate the free drainage of debris 

and partition walls to allow progressive 

filling and overflowing of successive 

tank cells to match the I&I event size. 

I&I wet well, sump and pump 

station design: A means to flush or 

clean out I&I wet wells or sumps that 

remain unused for extended periods of 

time should be considered. This can be 

accommodated via selectively located 

hose connections, concrete benching to 

promote removal of solids or proprietary 

pre-rotation pumps, which maximize 

achievable sewage drawdown. 

Control, automation 

and flow measurement 

Instrumentation associated with 

storage tanks is fairly limited, however, 

the process control logic for operating 

automated stormwater detention 

facilities can be more involved than 

conventional pumping stations. It is 

important to build in control logic for 

unmanned detention tanks in order to: 

• prevent repetitive tank flushing after 

or during a storm event; 

• prevent premature emptying of the 

tank into a surcharging downstream 

sewer; and 

• protect against small volumes of 

stagnant sewage accumulating in 

the tank. 

Communication with downstream 

pumping stations may be needed to 

ensure tanks are not emptied too early 

and may need a modulated release. For 

control of the tank flushing sequence, a 

series of conditions (permissives) can be 

built into the pump control sequence to 

measure if the storm event is truly over 

prior to starting a flushing sequence. 

For example, the system could verify 

that the running average water level in 

the tank has not changed by a pre-set 

percentage over a one-hour period. 

A separate pump control sequence is 

then required to differentiate between 

incoming storm flow into the tank and 

water accumulating in the sump pit 

after a flushing sequence. 

Measuring the volume of overflows or 

bypasses will be required by the federal 

Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations 

(WSER) (and generally the Ministry of 

the Environment and Climate Change); 

therefore, any overflow relief points in 

the tank should be monitored. It is not 

always practical to install conventional 

magnetic flow meters or parshall flumes 

at these inaccessible locations, so creative 

volume measurements may be required. 

The current WSER calls for a minimum 

15% flow measurement accuracy at 

the WWTP effluent. No accuracy 

requirements were specifically mentioned 

for CSO points, although it may be 

specified through the Environmental 

Compliance Approval (ECA). Some nonconventional 

techniques used for bypass 

volume measurement have included: 

• measuring pressure at the pump 

discharge to relate it to the pump’s 

certified test curve to establish an 

instantaneous flow rate through the 

pump discharge; 

• using level transmitters to take a 

‘time stamp’ level measurement prior 

to emptying the tank to establish the 

volume stored. 

• for adjustable overflow levels, using 

a spot plate to measure the relative 

position of a weir to the liquid level 

via a second level ultrasonic. 

Construction and structural issues 

When constructing long, narrow, 

sanitary detention tanks that are 

confined by existing utilities or rightsof-way 

(ROWs), consideration should 

be given to using one-sided formwork, 

placed against any shoring system. 

This method maximizes the usable 

width of the tank within the available 

site. Always consider the minimum 

width required by an excavator to 

efficiently complete the works. 

During construction, proper 

concrete curing techniques must be 

followed to mitigate against shrinkage 

cracking in long concrete walls and 

expansion joints used for large tanks. 

Controlled permeability formwork 

(CPF) liner on the face of water 

retaining concrete surfaces can be 

specified to improve the concrete finish 

and freeze thaw resistance. 

As storage tanks remain mostly 

empty, they are relatively light structures 

and consideration must be given to 

control buoyancy to avoid structural 

failure due to the base slab ‘floating’ 

if high groundwater levels occur. 

For enclosed tanks, the weight of the 

tank can be increased by burying the 

top roof slab. For large area open tanks, 

an extensive subdrain network may be 

required and consideration is also needed 

for protection against frost heave. 

Inflow and infiltration into a sewage 

collection and treatment system can have 

significant negative outcomes, including 

treatment system overload, insufficient 

treatment, and basement flooding. 

Addressing I&I can be done either at 

the source or through expanding the 

capacity of the system. If expansion 

is deemed necessary, the hydraulic 

capacity of the conveyance system 

must be assessed to determine and 

eliminate bottlenecks before a detention 

facility can be designed. From that 

point, considerations need to be given 

to facility type, tank access, cleaning 

methods, control and automation, and 

construction constraints in order 

to generate a viable design basis. 

The proper combination of features 

can yield an I&I detention system than 

will be able to service a community for 

many years into the future. 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

61

United Rentals offers Confined Space Entry Training designed for all workers who may 

enter, supervise entry or be adversely affected from confined spaces. We also offer 

Qualified/Competent Person Training seminars designed for all employees involved in 

trenching work, including job foremen, job superintendents, engineers and any personnel 

involved in underground projects. 

Abbotsford, BC (604) 851-4215 

Edmonton, AB (780) 463-0676 

Saskatoon, SK (306) 934-1862 

Calgary, AB (403) 243-1070 

© 2014 United Rentals, Inc.

COMMITTEES’ CORNER 

WEAO SPECIALTY SEMINAR: 

SMALL COMMUNITY WASTEWATER SYSTEMS – 

OCTOBER 22, 2015 

By Harpreet Rai, PhD, P.Eng. BCEE, RV Anderson Associates Limited; Youssouf Kalogo, PhD, P.Eng., MOECC; and 

Carla Fernandes, B.E.Sc., P.Eng., XCG Consulting Limited 

he WEAO 

Wastewater 

Treatment 

Technology 

Committee is 

organizing a 

seminar on Small 

Community 

Wastewater 

Systems in fall of 2015. The objective 

of the seminar will be to educate and 

share information with the participants 

on the design, operational, and 

regulatory challenges with lagoonbased 

and communal wastewater 

treatment systems including 

conventional systems, package plants 

and septic beds. The key focus areas of 

the seminar will include overview of 

the existing small systems in Ontario, 

septage and leachate treatment, 

operational issues and challenges, 

optimization strategies; and retrofits/ 

new technologies to address the 

challenges with these systems. 

The seminar will start with 

overview of design and operation 

challenges of lagoon and communal 

wastewater systems, hauled-waste 

treatment systems, and the regulatory 

challenges and trends for these 

systems. The presentation on hauled 

waste systems will include nature, 

characteristics and types of hauled 

wastes, the issues related to hauled 

wastes and leachate at wastewater 

treatment facilities, challenges related 

to collection and equalization, and 

optimization of WWTPs receiving 

these wastes. Following that, a 

presentation on the regulatory aspects 

will include a discussion of the 

Ministry of Environment and Climate 

Change (MOECC ) mandate related 

to regulating ‘sewage works’ in the 

province with a focus on lagoons 

and how the Ministry handles these 

sewage works in the light of historic 

and current lagoon performance 

information. Reference will be made 

to the 2008 MOECC Guidelines and 

New Environmental Technology 

(NETE) program. 

The latter half of the seminar 

will provide overview and case 

studies based talks on the recent 

advances on lagoon and communal 

wastewater systems and will include 

advanced sustainable treatment 

technologies like submerged attached 

growth reactors (SAGR), Biodomes, 

Waterloo Biofilters and others. 

The last presentation of the seminar 

will focus on the leachate treatment, 

which will provide an overview 

of leachate quality, quantity and 

available treatment technologies. 

Design considerations pertaining 

to design and operation of biological 

treatment systems for landfill leachate 

including design criteria, supplement 

addition, and process modeling 

will be discussed with the help of 

case studies. 

The talks in the seminar will be 

presented by well-known industry 

experts and will be based on the 

real-time experiences. The seminar will 

conclude with a dedicated discussion 

session following the presentation 

session, and will include a prepared 

set of relevant questions along with any 

additional questions by the participants. 

The seminar is designed to fill in 

the information gaps between recent 

advancement of technology and the 

prevalent treatment practices in small 

community wastewater systems, and 

therefore will be of great value and 

interest to the municipalities with 

such systems. 

The seminar breakfast will be 

sponsored by Black and Veatch and 

Lunch by RJ Burnside. The lunch and 

coffee breaks during the seminar will 

provide networking opportunities for 

the participants. 

Breakfast sponsored by: 

Lunch sponsored by: 

Program details and registration are 

now available on WEAO.org 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

63

COMMITTEES’ CORNER 

THE UTILITY MANAGEMENT FORUM 

enior Utility leaders 

in Ontario are faced 

with issues that affect 

them in their day-today 

operations and 

decision making; issues 

that are similar across 

many municipalities. 

In the US, the Water 

Environment Federation (WEF) and 

the American Water and Wastewater 

Association (AWWA) convene a Utility 

Management Conference annually 

where issues and possible solutions 

are discussed. There is brainstorming, 

sharing of best practices and 

discussion of potential strategies, 

which result in creative and innovative 

problem solving. 

The Water Environment 

Association of Ontario (WEAO) has 

established the Utility Management 

Forum Committee to convene a similar 

Utility Management Forum (UMF) 

scheduled to take place on October 19, 

2015 at the Kingbridge Centre in the 

Region of York. 

The UMF Committee is made 

up of representatives from several 

municipalities across the province, 

and there is still room at the table 

for others. It is hoped that a diverse 

group will emerge to ensure that all 

Planning Committee members: (L-R): Bill Serjeantson (Committee Chair, Cole Engineering); David Szeptycki 

(York Region); Simon Hopton (Peel Region); John Presta (Durham Region, WEAO liaison); Cordell Samuels 

(Assistant Chair, Cole Engineering); Don Faulkner (Adair); Olga Vrentzos (Waterloo Region). 

Missing from the photo: Frank Quarisa (City of Toronto); Michele Cole (Cole Engineering). 

voices and topics are covered in this 

and other events. As the committee 

works with utilities to address issues 

relevant to the Ontario experience, 

as well as make plans for future 

sessions, we welcome you to contact 

us if you would like to be part of 

the UMF Planning Committee. 

Otherwise, we hope to see you at the 

event, which will include topics such 

as the following: 

• Value of Water including Rates 

and Financing 

• Employee leadership and 

development 

• Climate change 

• Customer Service 

• Data including benchmarking and 

performance measurement 

• Emergency preparedness 

• Technology 

There will also be keynote addresses 

by NACWA’s CEO Adam Krantz and 

Halifax Water’s General Manager, 

Carl Yates; and water leaders from 

Canada and the US are being invited 

to share their experiences in tackling 

difficult issues. Register now on the 

WEAO website or call the WEAO 

office at 416-410-6933. 



Anaerobic Digestion Equipment 

Steel and Stainless Steel Digester Covers, Mixers, Heat Exchangers, 

View Ports, Foam Separators, and other accessories. 

Equipment is designed to applicable AISC, AWS, ASME, ASCE 

codes and fabricated by OTI employees to ensure the highest quality. 

www.oti.cc • Ph 541-689-5851 

Represented By: 

Vector Process Equipment Inc. (905.979.8660)

WIPE OUT! 

Problem: Sanitary wipes and other solids are 

causing major problems with ragging 

and downtime at wastewater plants. 

Solution: 

Franklin Miller’s powerful grinders! 

Call 973-535-9200 today to wipe out 

problem solids at your facility. 

TASKMASTER ® 

and DIMMINUTOR ® 

GRINDERS FINELY CUT 

SANITARY WIPES AND 

REDUCE DOWNTIME. 

Since 

1918 

www.franklinmiller.com 

Visit our website to view our full line of grinders, 

screens, septage receiving and washing systems. 



OPCEA NEWS 

OPCEA 24TH ANNUAL GOLF 

TOURNAMENT REPORT 

By John Carney, 2015 OPCEA President, OPCEA Golf Tournament Coordinator 

n June 3 the OPCEA held its 24 th Annual Golf 

Tournament at Cardinal Golf Club in Newmarket, 

Ontario. A total of 232 golfers including members and 

guests from 44 OPCEA member companies enjoyed an 

excellent day of golf. The weather cooperated, the course 

was in great shape and, once again, the staff at Cardinal 

did an excellent job of hosting our annual event. 

The day began with a barbeque lunch followed by 

18 holes of golf, and ended with an exceptional steak 

dinner and the awarding of prizes. 

Our congratulations go out to the team from Veolia Water Technologies, this 

year’s champions and winners of the John Coomey Memorial Trophy. The team 

was made up of Jason Boomhour, David Pearce, Matt Woodbeck, and Matt 

McBride, who shot a great score of 13 under par. 

Water For People Canada participated in the tournament by raising a total 

of $2,300. Participants contributed to a 50/50 raffle resulting in a donation of 

$1,150, and an additional donation of $1,500 was made by OPCEA. 

The event was further enhanced by the generous sponsorship of 29 of the 36 

holes by many of our OPCEA member companies. All golfers had an opportunity 

to win prizes for making 

long putts, hitting long 

drives, or getting their ball 

closest to an object. Thank 

you to all those companies 

who sponsored this part of 

the tournament. 

The evening ended with 

the OPCEA supplying 

each golfer with one of the 

following prizes: 

• $30 LCBO gift card, 

• $30 Restaurant gift card, or 

John Carney (far right) Golf Tournament Coordinator and 2015 

OPCEA President presenting the John Coomey Memorial Trophy 

to (L-R) Jason Boomhour, David Pearce, Matt McBride and 

Matt Woodbeck (not pictured), the winning team from Veolia 

Water Technologies. 

(L-R) John Carney, Golf Tournament Coordinator, with fellow 

board members Dale Jackson and Steve Davey, who both 

assisted with golf registration and prize distribution. 

• Cineplex gift card. 

I would like to thank Steve 

Davey, Dale Jackson, and Jon 

Louch who did a great job in 

co-ordination of the golfer 

registration process and 

helped with prize distribution 

throughout the evening. 

Thanks to all the 

participants, and especially 

the OPCEA member 

companies for making the 

24 th Annual OPCEA Golf 

Tournament a tremendous 

success. 

I look forward to seeing 

everyone back again at our 

25 th Annual event, which has 

been booked for Wednesday, 

June 1 st , 2016, once again at 

the Cardinal Golf Club. 

www.xcg.com 

• Toronto 

• Kitchener 

• Kingston 

• Edmonton 

• Halifax 

• Cincinnati 

XCG Consulting Limited celebrates 

25 years of providing innovative and 

practical environmental solutions in: 

• Municipal Infrastructure 

• Wastewater & Water Treatment 

• Site Assessment & Remediation 

• Water Resources 

• Solid Waste Management 

• Haz. Materials Management 

• Training & 

Operations 

Visit us at www.xcg.com 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

67

OPCEA PROFILE 

BRIAN ALLEN: 

MAKING THINGS BETTER 

ontrary to 

popular belief, 

Brian Allen is not 

‘officially’ retired. 

“One gets so 

much experience 

that companies 

don’t want to 

let you go,” says 

Allen, who is now engaged in consulting 

after spending almost 30 years in sales 

with Indachem Inc. “Besides, there is 

water and wastewater in virtually every 

process and industry.” 

After graduating from the University 

of Toronto with a master’s degree in 

Chemical Engineering in 1970, he 

spent several years with an industrial 

laboratory funded by the National 

Research Council, developing unique 

technologies for metal recovery and 

filtration. Then in 1987, he became 

a founding member of Indachem, 

a manufacturer and distributor of 

environmental equipment related to the 

dewatering process. 

“That’s when I migrated to the 

metal finishing industry and eventually 

to municipal water and wastewater 

treatment,” recalls Allen, adding that 

he also worked with pulp and paper, 

mining, and food production, among 

other industries. At that time, Indachem’s 

main area of activity was in the feeding 

of polymers to precipitate suspended 

solids from water and wastewater. 

Charged with introducing this unique 

equipment to industry, he travelled 

across Canada conducting trials and 

demonstrations at various facilities to 

prove to clients that the product would 

work. “In order to sell the product, I had 

to learn the various applications,” he 

explains, adding that his understanding 

of wastewater processes continued 

to increase over the years. “My work 

also brought me into contact with the 

consulting industry across Canada.” 

In 1991, Indachem, and hence Allen, 

joined OPCEA. His goal as a member 

was not only to support the Association, 

but also to learn everything he could 

about the environmental business and 

to make more contacts. “I think when 

you join an industry, it’s important to 

participate in the association that is 

helping the industry grow,” he adds, 

noting that he also became a member 

of the Pollution Control Association of 

Ontario (PCAO), which was renamed 

the Water Environment Association 

of Ontario in 1993. In 2004 he was 

inducted into The Select Society Of 

Sanitary Sludge Shovellers (5 S). 

Allen made a point of attending 

monthly PCAO seminars and 

bi-monthly plant tours. At the same 

time, he became increasingly involved 

in OPCEA, devoting a lot of time to 

helping organize the golf tournaments. 

“Participating in the golf tournament is 

a great way to interact with customers 

and clients,” says Allen. “Sometimes, 

in your work, you have to be able to 

look at the bigger picture.” 

“I fell in love with the Association 

and the people in it,” he continues. 

“It was a good learning experience and 

an opportunity to meet virtually everyone 

in the business.” After serving on the 

board for several terms, Allen accepted 

the position of president in 2008-2009. 

Although, today, he is no longer 

involved with the Association, he still 

attends the golf tournament and the 

annual conference. Meanwhile, he 

continues to share his experience and 

expertise in the industry through his 

work as a consultant. “At this point 

I’ve been involved with just about 

every city and every engineering firm in 

Canada,” he says. 

Being semi-retired does afford 

Allen some flexibility as well as some 

leisure time to pursue golf, fly-fishing 

and gardening. But it also allows him 

to continue pursuing his passion. “If 

you can go through your career, learn 

something and contribute something, 

there’s not much more you can ask for,” 

he reflects. “It’s about making things 

better – that’s the bottom line.” 



OPERATOR PROFILE 

PATRICK CARRIÈRE: 

BOLD STEPS LEAD TO A SUCCESSFUL CAREER PATH 

s Supervisor 

at the City 

of Cornwall 

Wastewater 

Treatment 

Plant, Patrick 

Carrière has 

reached a 

milestone in 

the career he chose while he was still 

in high school. “A representative from 

the community college came in to 

do a presentation on environmental 

science and it piqued my curiosity,” 

he recalls, adding that after 

graduation, he enrolled at La Cité 

Collégiale. “The program included a 

broad range of environmental topics, 

but the one that caught my attention 

was the water and wastewater side.” 

But when he completed college in 

1994, the Ontario Government was 

cutting many of its environmental 

programs and there were few positions. 

He found himself in a Catch 22, 

requiring work experience to get a 

job but unable to get a job to gain 

that experience. Undeterred, Carrière 

devoted two weeks of holidays from his 

non-water related job to volunteer at 

the Alexandria Water Treatment Plant 

and get his name in the system. 

“Three or four months later, there 

was an opening and I got the job,” 

he notes. “I started working there 

and I’ve been working in water and 

wastewater ever since.” While at 

Alexandria, he worked in water 

treatment and water distribution and, 

after the amalgamation that created 

North Glengarry Waterworks, in 

wastewater collection and wastewater 

treatment as well. During that time, he 

studied hard to obtain his certification 

as an operator in all four areas. 

He also went to school in the 

evenings to complete a millwright 

course. “I did that to become a better 

operator,” he explains. He then 

accepted a position at the WTP in 

Cornwall, eventually transferring to the 

maintenance department in the WWTP 

in order to increase his experience 

and obtain the necessary hours for his 

millwright certification. 

Carrière continued to work in 

maintenance at the WWTP until an 

opening for a supervisor position 

became available. “With a little bit of 

luck and some hard work, I was able 

to get to where I am now,” he reflects. 

“Every day brings a different challenge. 

You are continually adapting so you can 

produce the best effluent water. With 

proper monitoring and sampling you can 

be proactive and stay one step ahead of 

any changes occurring in the process.” 

“I’ve always had a great team to work 

with throughout my career,” he adds. 

“Together we have been able to work 

through any operational challenge.” 

Along with daily operations, 

Carrière has also enjoyed the challenges 

that have come with the expansion 

of the Cornwall WWTP. The project 

has revolved around the addition of a 

biological aerated filter system (BAF) 

for secondary treatment, one of only 

a few such systems in the province. 

“I was lucky enough to be involved 

from design to implementation,” he 

says, noting that the upgrade should 

be completed this fall. “We’ve been 

working on this for many years.” 

I’ve always had a great team 

to work with throughout 

my career. Together we have 

been able to work through any 

operational challenge. 

During that time, Carrière 

participated in a ‘friendly fines’ 

fundraising program. To promote 

punctuality, participants on the project 

were fined a dollar for every minute 

they arrived late to any meeting and 

conference call. In addition anyone 

who had a phone that rang during a 

meeting was fined $10. All proceeds 

were donated to the Agape Centre, an 

organization devoted to fighting hunger 

in the community. 

“It worked great,” recalls Carrière. 

“When we first started, we did collect 

some money. But very soon every 

meeting was starting on time and we 

rarely had distractions from phones 

ringing.” He adds that most of the 

$2,790 raised was due to donations. 

In the past, he has also given his time 

to the community as a soccer coach 

and volunteer fire fighter. Now that his 

daughters are older, most of his spare 

time is devoted to driving them to their 

sport activities. 

His work at the WWTP keeps him 

very busy the rest of the time. The plant 

is currently working toward substantial 

completion after which the focus will 

be on process optimization. “I am still 

very caught up in getting this plant 

up and running,” he says, adding that 

the goal is to produce the best quality 

effluent possible. “I am very lucky to 

work in Cornwall with such a good 

team and great support.” 



When you have knowledge, 

you have power. 

With more than 170 engineers and professionals, and 

counting, in our 5 Ontario offices, CIMA+ can deliver 

water, wastewater, transportation and infrastructure 

projects, from planning and design concepts, through 

detailed design, construction and commissioning. 

Bowmanville | Burlington | Kitchener | Ottawa | Vaughan 

EAST 

YOUR PARTNER 

FOR ALL YOUR 

WATER & WASTEWATER 

NEEDS 

• Automatic Samplers 

• Flowmeters 

• Water Quality 

• Pump Station Monitoring 

• Flumes 

• Gas Detection 

• Level Measurement 

PROUD 

PARTNER OF: 

investing in today for tomorrow 

SCADA 

Data Management 

Asset Management 

Electrical Engineering 

Information Technology 

Instrumentation & Control 

excellence. period. 

SOLAR 

WIND 

WATER 

ENERGY 

WIND MAINTENANCE 

SOLAR OPERATIONS 

POWER 

INDUSTRY 

WATER 

NETWORKS 

ENERGY 

SOLAR 

INFORMATION WIND 

SECURITY 

SCADA 

UTILITIES 

INFORMATION 

ASSETS 

DATA DATA 

MAINTENANCE 

Montreal • Toronto • Sarnia • Dartmouth • Calgary 

Toll Free: 1.888.965.4700 

info@avensyssolutions.com • www.AvensysSolutions.com 

Guelph · Calgary · Detroit · Toronto · London 

www.eramosa.com 519 · 763 · 7774 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

71

Smart. Choice. 

PaveDrain® 

A revolutionary, permeable paving solution 

The PaveDrain system is a permeable articulating concrete block/mat which 

incorporates a patented arch design to create an internal storage chamber that 

effectively manages stormwater runoff and provides infiltration rates well beyond 

conventional pavers while simultaneously providing strength for heavy vehicular loads. 

• Open joints for fast drainage 

• Infiltrates in excess of 4,000 in/hr per one foot diameter 

• Easy installation and very low maintenance 

• No seams to catch on steel snow plow blades 

• Available in multiple sizes and color options 

• Increased skid resistance over traditional pavements 

• A critical component of Low Impact Development (LID) 

Nilex. Smart. Choice. 

nilex.com

OPERATORS MATH CORNER 

IN SEARCH OF THE WAY 

By Hany G. Jadaa, C.Chem., M.Sc. Eng., LEXICON Environmental Consulting Services Inc. 

WRENCHES AND SPANNERS 

ello friends and 

colleagues. It’s 

me again with 

another article 

about math and 

its applications 

to our business. 

This article is 

not about Zen 

Buddhism as the title may imply; 

it’s about the most challenging (and 

perhaps one of the most interesting) 

issues that faces all of us in our dayto-day 

work. It is without doubt the 

challenge of converting from one unit 

of measure to another. 

Let me start off with this tidbit of 

information. If you do a global search 

of the early definition of mathematics, 

you will find it defined as the study 

of relationships between quantities, 

magnitudes and properties, as well 

as the logical operations by which 

unknown quantities, magnitudes, 

and properties may be deduced 

(Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia). 

It may also be defined as the study of 

quantity, structure, space and change 

(Wikipedia). Other definitions tell 

us that mathematics is the science 

of quantity, either of magnitudes 

(geometry), or of numbers (arithmetic), 

or of the generalization of these 

two fields (algebra), and it is seen in 

terms of a simple search for patterns. 

During the 19th Century, mathematics 

broadened these applications to 

encompass mathematical or symbolic 

logic, and mathematics became 

regarded increasingly as the science 

of logical relations and drawing 

necessary conclusions. 

When I read this, the words ‘logical 

operations,’ ‘logical relations’ and 

‘symbolic logic’ strike me with great 

interest. Why is that? Let me tell you a 

little story. 

Throughout my career, from the 

time I was a young engineer working 

as an operator and a chemist at a fairly 

large water treatment plant, to when I 

moved on to being a consultant and a 

manager, working on three continents 

serving all kinds of clients, it amazes 

me to this day how different people 

convert units of measure. Some do 

it in various methodical ways 

using pen and paper; others do it 

in their heads as they take random 

and obscure short cuts; while others 

draw triangles, squares and circles 

(and some other odd and fascinating 

shapes) that get dissected in many 

intriguing ways, then fill in the 

resulting mini-shapes with few 

interesting units of measure that 

allow them to convert to the required 

units of measure. Some rely on 

available conversion sheets from 

different sources. Nowadays, an 

increasing number of people rely solely 

on conversion-type calculators and 

cell phone apps to perform the 

required conversions for them. As you 

can see, different people, with different 

ways of thinking, utilize different 

logical operations, and apply different 

techniques and tools (and even logic) 

to convert between units. 

But here’s the problem: most of 

these methods are flawed and tend 

to break down. Many say that their 

logical conversion method works 

if the original units are given in a 

specific format. Others say that the 

shape-based methods will not work 

if a certain unit doesn’t match-up to 

the used shape, therefore requiring 

some sort of a pre-conversion. They 

add that if they cannot perform the 

pre-conversion, the shape-based 

method will fail them. Many tell me 

that various available conversion 

sheets are lacking specific direct 

values. Those who rely on conversion 

calculators and cell phone apps often 

say that their gadgets sometimes 

lack certain direct conversions and 

they need to apply an intermediate 

conversion before they can solve a 

question. I am told that if they can’t 

do it, their calculators and their apps 

are useless! One person told me that a 

cell phone operating system update is 

now required to accommodate a more 

sophisticated conversion app. 

So the million-dollar question 

becomes, what is the best way to 

convert between units? My answer is 

simple. The best way is your way, as 

long as your way yields the correct 

answer – all the time, not some of 

the time. One more thing: If you are 

planning on writing exams of any 

type, the best way to convert is by 

using a technique that will yield the 

correct answer, all the time, and in the 

shortest time possible – the luxury of 

time is just not there. 

When I train operators on how 

to solve math problems, this is my 

message. I really have no preference 

as to how you do your conversions, 

as long as you come up with the right 

answer. If your method works for 

you (i.e., yields the right answer), and 

works for you all the time, then your 

logic is well justified and it is a good 

method. Stick with it and keep using 

it. There is no such thing as a good 

way or a bad way to convert. A good 

way is when you come up with the 

right answer all the time. A bad way 

is when you keep coming up with the 

wrong answer (or occasionally the 

right answer). And if you keep coming 

up with the wrong answer (or the 

occasional right answer), don’t you 

think it is time to adopt a different 

logic and learn a new technique? 

We all have different ways of 

thinking, and we all apply different 

logic in our approach to conducting 

our business and solving problems of 

all kinds. As you know, adopting a 

very methodical approach to solving 

problems of any kind is fundamental 

and crucial. Reading further, I will show 

you my method of converting units, a 

method that has worked for me and that 

has not failed me yet in my over 30 years 

of practice in the world of water/ 

wastewater engineering and operations. 

There are three things of 

importance I want to note. First, I 

am not trying to convert you (pardon 

the pun) into using my method of 

madness. I am merely showing you 

how I convert units with a technique 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

73

WRENCHES AND SPANNERS 

that yields the right answer, all the time, 

no exceptions, and, I might add, in a 

very few seconds (not minutes). Second, 

I am not saying that my method is 

perfect; I am saying that my method is 

perfect for me; it conforms to my logic 

and my logical way of thinking (but may 

not conform to yours). Third, if you 

keep having problems with converting 

using your way, maybe you should give 

my technique a try and see if it works 

for you (you might even like it after a 

while). All I’m going to say is that my 

method works, and it works all the time, 

and it works fast. 

Before we proceed, here are a few 

conversion factors that are a must 

for every operator in our business to 

know (not necessarily in any order 

of importance): 

1 m = 100 cm = 1,000 millimeters 

1 m = 3.28 ft 

1 ft = 12 inches 

1 m 3 = 1,000 Liters 

1 Liter = 1,000 milliliters 

1 m 3 = 35.3 ft 3 

1 ft 3 = 7.48 US gallons 

1 ft 3 = 6.23 Imperial gallons 

1 U.S. gallon = 3.785 liters 

1 Imperial gallon = 4.546 liters 

1 Kg = 1,000,000 milligrams 

1 Kg = 2.2 lbs 

Don’t worry if I have missed some of 

your personal favorites. I might include 

them as they become relevant to a 

specific discussion. 

Okay – enough stories and opinions 

and on to converting. So, say you get 

asked to convert 28,750 m 3 to liters. 

Some of you will say, “oh that’s easy; 

just multiply by a 1,000.” Others 

may say “no, divide by a 1,000.” 

Yet others will say “a m 3 is larger than 

a liter therefore you have to multiply 

by a 1,000.” Others may disagree and 

say “because a m 3 is larger than a liter, 

then you have to divide by a 1,000 

to make it smaller.” Yet someone 

will say “well let me look it up in this 

conversion sheet that I have… oh… it’s 

not there!” The debate continues… and 

here we are wasting time discussing 

what to do and how to do it, especially 

when time is precious and there are 

only a few minutes left to finish this 

painfully long certification exam. 

Here is my technique. I’m going to 

call it the “Hany” method (and no, I 

did not invent it nor I am collecting 

royalties for it). Why the ‘Hany’ method? 

Because it starts with writing the 

first letter of my name – an H. If you 

examine the letter H, it resembles a 

little storage container with two spaces 

(or boxes) – one on top, and one on the 

bottom. Bear with me while I show you 

my method of madness in steps. 

Step 1 – Draw an H (and it doesn’t 

have to be pretty; trust me – I won’t 

get offended). 

Step 2 – Identify your given unit and 

your target unit. Remember, you are 

trying to convert 28,750 m 3 to liters. 

In this case, your given unit is m 3 

and your target unit is liters. What 

you need to do is get rid of the unit 

m 3 and replace it with the unit liters 

(i.e., m 3 è liters). Note that both of 

these are units of volume and could be 

converted from one to the other. 

Step 3 – Take the given numerical value 

and its attached unit (28,750 m 3 ), and 

write it in the box on the top. 

Step 4 – In basic math, there is a rule 

that says “if you divide a numerical 

value by itself, it resolves to a value 

of 1.” In other words, 5 divided by 5 

equals 1. 20,000 divided by 20,000 

equals 1. Well the same thing sort 

of thing applies to units as well. 

Dividing a unit of measure by itself 

resolves it to 1 (i.e., it gets cancelled). 

In that sense, the expression m 3 

divided by itself (m 3 ) makes the unit 

disappear. In order to divide the unit 

m 3 by itself and make it disappear, 

write it in a separate storage container 

(another H), this time on the bottom. 

Step 5 – Remember your target unit? 

That target unit liters now needs to go 

in the opposite box (the empty box on 

the top of the second H). 

Step 6 – Now, insert the proper 

conversion factors (the numerical 

values) for these units. Recall that 1 m 3 

is equal to 1,000 liters. Therefore, the 

number 1 goes before the unit m 3 , and 

the number 1,000 goes in the box on 

the top before the word liters. 

Step 7 – Since the unit m 3 appears in 

two opposite locations (the top of one 

box and the bottom of another), they 

can now be cancelled. The only unit left 

over is liters, your target unit. 

Step 8 – See that red line in the 

middle of the H’s? That is what I 

call my divide line, which means 

that any numbers appearing above 

that line get multiplied, and any 

numbers that appear below that line 

get divided. And the only unit that 

should remain is your target unit 

(liters, in this case). 

Step 9 – On your calculator, 

multiply 28,750 by 1,000 and divide 

by 1. And voila – your answer is 

28,750,000 liters. 



Someone might say, “well I knew 

that; this is easy, and I don’t have to 

do 9 steps to get the right answer.” 

To them I say “good for you, if it 

works all the time.” I know this is 

easy, but math problems are not 

always that simple as most of you 

know. Some problems are a bit more 

complex and involve multiple steps 

and more complex units. All I’m 

showing you right now is the baby 

steps to take and the foundation 

to solving the most complicated 

math problems in our business. 

This step-by-step approach, in 

my opinion, is very methodical, 

and it is all about working with 

units (not numbers); it’s all 

about matching similar units for 

cancellation purposes. It takes 

away the guesswork out of solving 

math problems (should I multiply 

by a 1,000 or should I divide by a 

1,000?). It is also very visual as you 

can see (matching units – tops with 

bottoms). And because it is both 

methodical and visual, it is foolproof 

and makes it very easy to identify 

mistakes when you make them. 

No guessing, no wasting time. If you 

are able to cancel units, then you 

are on the right track. If you cannot, 

then you are on the wrong track. 

One more thing: when applying 

this technique, your calculator 

becomes the last tool you would 

want to use, not the first tool. 

There is no point in punching 

numbers on your calculator if you 

do not know whether to multiply or 

to divide. I tell people: let the units 

guide you. If the numbers fall above 

the divide line of the H (on top), you 

multiply them. If the numbers fall 

below the divide line of the H (on the 

bottom), you divide them. Simple. 

Let’s review and summarize. 

Identify your given and your target 

units from the question. Start off 

by writing your given unit and its 

numerical value in the top portion of 

the first H box (box #1). Cancel your 

given unit by placing it in the bottom 

portion of the next H box (box #2). 

Place your target unit in the opposite 

location of box #2. Now add the 

corresponding numerical values to 

your units in box #2. Cross out 

(cancel) similar units. Finally, 

multiply or divide the numbers 

according to their location in 

the various boxes – top numbers 

get multiplied; bottom numbers 

get divided. Done. 

See if you can repeat these steps 

and get the right answers for the 

conversion problems I gave you a 

couple of articles ago. 

Problem 1 – Convert 375 liters/sec 

to m 3 /day. 

a) 4.3 m 3 /day 

b) 540 m 3 /day 

c) 1,350 m 3 /day 

d) 32,400 m 3 /day 

Problem 2 – Convert 460 imperial gal/ 

min to m 3 /day 

a) 3,011 m 3 /day 

b) 145.7 m 3 /day 

c) 125.5 m 3 /day 

d) 70.3 m 3 /day 

Good luck, and we will continue 

this discussion in the next issue. 

Until then, if you have any questions, 

suggestions or comments please feel 

free to send them my way via email at 

lexicon@ca.inter.net. 

flemingcollege.ca/senrs 

ADVANCED WATER SYSTEMS 

OPERATIONS & MANAGEMENT CO-OP 

This full-time, Ontario College Graduate Certificate offers students the 

opportunity to: 

• Prepare for work in wastewater treatment, water treatment, and 

water distribution 

• Leverage our college’s water and wastewater technology expertise 

• Prepare for MOE certification exams 

• Participate in a paid co-op to gain industry experience 

For more information or to find out how to sponsor a co-op student, 

contact: Ken MacDonnell, program coordinator 

1-866-353-6464 x3029 or ken.macdonnell@flemingcollege.ca 

ONLINE WATER AND WASTEWATER 

OPERATOR TRAINING 

These courses are offered through 

Continuing Education and Customized Training: 

• MOE Approved Drinking Water Operator CEUs 

• MOE Recognized Wastewater Operator CEUs 

$188.02 per 0.7 CEU course, 25+ courses available 

Learn virtually anytime, anywhere 

flemingcollege.ca/wateroperatortraining • 1-888-269-6929 x1502 

In-class courses, with a hands-on component for Water and Wastewater 

Operators can be scheduled at your location or at any Fleming College campus. 

For more information or a quote contact: Eva Rees 1-866-353-6464 x3260 or 

eva.rees@flemingcollege.ca. 

cawt.ca 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

75

COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE ROSTER 

Gustavo Arvizu M. Eng. P.Eng. – WSP Canada Inc. 

Julie Vincent – WEAO 

Preya Balgobin, P. Eng. – Chair, R.V. Anderson Associates Limited 

José Bicudo, Ph.D., PE – Board Liaison, Region of Waterloo 

Gary Burrows – City of London 

Alexandra Chan – Cole Engineering Group 

Charlie Chen, P.Eng. – YP, AECOM 

Emil Cocirla, B.Sc. – Can-Am Instruments 

Patrick Coleman, Ph.D., P.Eng. – Black & Veatch 

Edgar Tovilla, M.Sc., P.Eng. – City of Barrie 

Tonia Van Dyk – C&M Environmental Technologies Inc. 

Yashar Esfandi – SPD Sales Limited 

Louise Hollingsworth – ReForest London 

Simon Hopton, P.Eng. – Region of Peel 

Greg Jackson – ACG Technology Ltd./ 

Envirocan WWT Equip. Co. Ltd. 

Christine Hanlon – Publisher, Craig Kelman & Associates 

Kareem Khodiry – Clow Canada 

Jeremy Kraemer, Ph.D., P.Eng. – CH2M 

Sarah Laidlaw – Associated Engineering 

Erin Longworth, M.Eng., P.Eng., PMP – CIMA+ 

Paul McLennan, P.Eng. – GM BluePlan Engineering Limited 

Rick Niesink – Operations Liaison, Regional Municipality of Niagara 

Natasha Niznik, EIT – Editor, Toronto Water 

Alvin Pilobello – YP, GHD 

Rajan Sawhney, P.Eng. – Hatch Mott MacDonald 

Madhur K. Shrestha – Mamas Engineering and Consulting 

Peter Takaoka, M.Eng., P.Eng. – R.V. Anderson Associates Limited 

Leila Tootchi, EIT – HB Construction Company Ltd. 

Brian Topp, P.Eng. – Hollen Controls Ltd. 

Laura Verhaeghe, P.Eng. – GM BluePlan Engineering Consultants Limited 

Jane Wilson – YP Liaison, J.L. Richards & Associates Limited 



WATER & WASTEWATER 

SPECIALISTS 

COLLECTION TREATMENT BIOSOLIDS OPTIMIZATION 

Delivering Proven 

Infrastructure 

Solutions... 

Barrie (705) 726-3371 

Belleville (613) 966-4243 

Collingwood (705) 445-3451 

Ottawa (613) 822-1052 

...to satisfied clients 

for over 50 years 

www.ainleygroup.com 

MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION WATER STRUCTURAL PLANNING 

GE Power & Water 

Water & Process Technologies 

Boost your productivity 15% with 

our latest ZeeWeed membrane. 

Save on construction costs with a 

flexible design that reduces your 

MBR footprint by 20%. 

Simplify your design by reducing 

membrane aeration equipment 

and controls by 50%. 

Taking ZeeWeed* MBR 

technology to the next level 

Boost your productivity 15% with 

our latest ZeeWeed membrane. 

Save on construction costs with a 

flexible design that reduces your 

MBR footprint by 20%. 

Simplify your design by reducing 

membrane aeration equipment 

and controls by 50%. 

Reduce your operating costs 

with a 30% energy savings. 

Have the confidence of the strongest, 

most reliable membrane in the industry. 

Learn more Reduce at gewater.com. your operating For costs a guided tour of GE Water headquarters in Oakville, Ontario, contact 

our regional with sales a 30% manager energy savings. Geoff Totten at 905.465.3030 ext. 3215, or our regional representative 

Scott Lenhardt with Pro-Aqua, Inc. at 905.864.9311. 

Have the confidence of the strongest, 

GE Water & Process Technologies, Oakville, Ontario: 905.465.3030 • Pro Aqua, Inc., Milton, Ontario: 905.864.9311 

most reliable membrane in the industry. 

*Trademark of General Electric Company. May be registered in one or more countries. 

Note: Percentages compared to previous generations of ZeeWeed. 

Note: Percentages compared with previous generations of ZeeWeed. 

Note: Percentages compared to previous generations of ZeeWeed. 


INFLUENTS 

Fall 2015 

77

DIRECTORY OF ADVERTISERS 

INFLUENTS would not be possible without the advertising support of these companies and organizations. 

Please think of them when you require a product or service. We have endeavoured to make it easier for you to 

contact these suppliers by including their telephone number and, where applicable, their websites. You can also 

go to the electronic version of INFLUENTS at www.weao.org and access direct links to any of these companies. 

Company Page Phone Website 

ACG Technology 79 905-856-1414 www.acgtechnology.com 

AECOM 24 519-673-0510 www.aecom.ca 

Ainley Group 77 705-726-3371 www.ainleygroup.com 

Anthrafilter 47 519-751-1080 www.anthrafilter.net 

Associated Engineering 76 416-622-9502 www.ae.ca 

Atlas Corporation 19 905-669-6825 www.atlascorp.com 

Avensys Solutions 71 514-738-6766 www.avensyssolutions.com 

BioMaxx 28 855-940-5556 www.biomax.ca 

Black & Veatch 54 905-747-8506 www.bv.com 

C & M Environmental Technologies Inc. 6 800-570-8779 www.cmeti.com 

Cancoppas Limited 10 905-569-6246 www.cancoppas.com 

CIMA+ 71 905-695-1005 www.cima.ca 

Endress + Hauser Canada Ltd. 29 905-681-9262 www.CA.endress.com 

Eramosa Engineering Inc. 71 519-763-7774 www.eramosa.com 

Company Page Phone Website 

Kemira 3 800-879-6353 www.kemira.com 

Monteco Ltd. 57 866-960-9968 www.monteco.com 

MSU Mississauga Ltd. 25 800-268-5336 www.msumississauga.com 

Mueller Co. 36 800-423-1323 www.muellercompany.com 

Nelson Environmental 56 888-426-8180 www.nelsonenvironmental.com 

NETZSCH Canada Inc. 18 705-797-8426 info@netzsch.com 

Nilex Inc. 72 800-667-4811 www.nilex.com 

Olympus Technologies, Inc. 65 541-689-5851 www.oti.cc 

Parkson 49 1-888-Parkson www.parkson.com 

Parsons 45 905-943-0500 www.parsons.com 

Pollardwater.com 19 800-437-1146 www.pollardwater.com 

R.E Morrison Equipment 9 905-828-6301 www.remeqip.com 

Rotork Controls Canada 37 905-363-0313 www.rotork.com 

RV Anderson Associates Limited 39 416-497-8600 www.rvanderson.com/sustainability 

Franklin Miller 66 800-932-0599 www.franklinmiller.com 

GE Water & Process Technologies 77 905-465-3030 www.gewater.com 

School of Environmental & Natural 

Resource Sciences – Fleming College 

75 866-353-6464 www.flemingcollege.ca/senrs 

H2Flow Equipment Inc. 66 905-660-9775 www.h2flow.com 

Hach Sales & Service Canada Ltd. 20 800-665-7635 www.hachco.ca 

Hatch Mott MacDonald 11 905-855-2010 www.hatchmott.com 

Hollen Controls Limited 78 519-766-1152 www.hollencontrols.ca 

Hydro International 3 866-615-8130 www.hydro-int.com 

Indachem Inc. 69 416-743-3751 www.indachem.com 

InRoads Insurance Brokers Inc. 41 905-636-8001 www.inroadsinsurance.com 

IPEX Inc. 55 866-473-9462 www.ipexinc.com 

John Brooks Company Limited 7, 68 877-624-5757 www.fluidhandlingsolutions.com 

Sentrimax Centrifuges Inc. 2 866-247-5141 www.sentrimax.com 

SEW Eurodrive 19 800-567-8039 www.sewcan.ca 

Smith & Loveless Inc. 4 905-528-3807 www.smithandloveless.com 

Terratec Environmental Ltd. 4 800-846-2097 www.terratecenvironmental.com 

United Rentals Trench Safety 62 800.UR.RENTS www.unitedrentals.com 

Vector ProcessEquipment Inc. 80 416-527-4396 www.vectorprocess.com 

Walker Environmental 71 866-694-9360 www.walkerind.com 

Wessuc Inc. 19 519-752-0837 www.wessuc.com 

XCG Consultants Ltd. 67 905-829-8880 www.xcg.com 

www.weao.org 

SCADA Integration ◆ Control & VFD Panels ◆ Applications Support 

Electrical Install ◆ Instrumentation & Site Services ◆ Turnkey 

465 Clair Road West, Guelph N1L 1R1 

Telephone: 519-766-1152 

Email: topp@hollencontrols.ca 

www.hollencontrols.ca 

Have you visited WEAO’s 

website? It contains a complete 

Calendar of Events that details 

all WEAO/WEF events 

and activities. Simply click on 

‘Calendar of Events’ from the 

home page and reference our 

‘Upcoming Events’ area on 

the right hand side of the 

home page. 



www.aqua-aerobic.com | 1-815-654-2501 

WILL YOU BE READY 

FOR LOWER PHOSPHORUS LIMITS? 

Discharge limits for phosphorus removal are more stringent than ever and pose a definite challenge for treatment 

plants. In most cases, the degree of removal required by a facility is determined by the quality of the receiving stream. 

Although a high degree of phosphorus removal can be achieved with a sophisticated secondary treatment process such 

as an AquaSBR ® system or AquaPASS ® system, some plants require even lower phosphorus levels. In this case, tertiary 

treatment is essential and lower levels can be achieved with an AquaDisk ® or AquaDiamond ® filter, AquaMB Process ® or 

Aqua-Aerobic ® MBR system. 

AquaSBR ® 

Sequencing Batch Reactor 

• Enhanced nitrogen and phosphorus 

removal in a single unit process, 

eliminating the need for separate 

secondary clarifi ers 

Aqua-Aerobic ® MBR 

Membrane Bioreactor 

• Enhanced biological nutrient removal 

in a compact footprint and direct 

fi ltration via submerged membranes 

AquaPASS ® 

Phased Activated Sludge System 

• Time-managed aerobic and anoxic 

reactions in a continuous-fl ow 

process schematic; nutrient removal 

is expedited via Phase Separator 

technology 

AquaDisk ® /AquaDiamond ® 

Cloth Media Filters 

• OptiFiber ® cloth fi ltration media 

provides advanced phosphorus 

removal 

• Customized designs for retrofi ts and 

new plants 

AquaMB Process ® 

Multi-Barrier Membrane System 

• High level nutrient removal utilizing 

multiple barriers, featuring cloth 

media fi lters followed by membranes 

IntelliPro ® 

Monitoring and Control System 

• Combines process monitoring and 

integrated comparative analysis 

• Automatic adjustment of biological 

nutrient removal and chemical addition 

• Proactive operator guidance via the 

BioAlert process notifi cation program 

Represented By: 

13-131 Whitmore Road 

Woodbridge ON, L4L 6E4 

p 1-905-856-1414 

www.envirocan.ca

Great Ideas. Long-term Solutions. 

Innovative process equipment for the treatment 

of water, wastewater and biosolids 

PROCESS EQUIPMENT INC 

Our exclusive product lines for Ontario 

For additional 

info contact: 

Dale Sanchez: 905-979-8660 – dale@vectorprocess.com 

André Osborne P.Eng: 416-527-4396 – andre@vectorprocess.com 

vectorprocess.com

lauren@kelman.ca

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?