Executive Summary The Guelph Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Operating within the Wastewater Services Department provides treatment of domestic, commercial, institutional and industrial wastewater collected from the City of Guelph and the neighbouring community of the Township of Guelph/Eramosa. The facility, located at 530 Wellington Street West, provides tertiary treatment with disinfected effluent being discharged to the Speed River. This report documents the performance of the sewage works as specified in the Amended Environmental Compliance Approval 0816-9AQP3C. The WWTP provides preliminary screening and grit removal, primary treatment by sedimentation, secondary treatment by conventional and extended aeration activated sludge and two stage tertiary treatments utilizing rotating biological contactors (RBC) followed by sand filtration. Disinfection of the final effluent is a requirement and is accomplished by the addition of sodium hypochlorite followed by the addition of sodium bisulphite for de-chlorination prior to discharge to the receiving stream. Process loading to the facility in 2013 was within typical values and the sludge accountability for the facility closed at 8%.The average total daily wastewater flow for this reporting period was 49.440 ML/day. The maximum total daily flow was 87.900 ML on April 12 th 2013. Overall, the WWTP performed satisfactorily during the reporting period. A summary of effluent quality data is included as Table 3.1 of this report. The data indicates that the facility recorded annual removal efficiencies of cbod 5 98.8% TSS 99.0%, TP 98.2%, TKN 96.0% and NH 3 98.5%. Solids generated during treatment were primarily stabilized by anaerobic digestion and subsequently mechanically dewatered. During the reporting period a total of 4349 dry tonnes of dewatered biosolids were generated. Of this total 841 dry tonnes were beneficially land applied or recycled into a primary digester. The facility has no provision for primary treatment or raw sewage bypass directly to the Speed River. The facility does have provision for secondary treatment, tertiary (RBC s and or sand filtration) bypass or partial tertiary treatment bypass. All flow through the facility received at a minimum, complete secondary treatment and was chlorinated. There were seven partial sandfilter bypasses in 2013. Please see section 5.0 for details. A plant flow diagram of the facilities process operations is presented as Appendix A of this report PAGE 1
Introduction A key component of a Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) is to perform a process loading assessment. This evaluation examines the measured flow and mass loading for the population and compares it to typical per capita contributions. As seen by the table below the City of Guelph WWTP was overall very typical in terms of process loading for 2013. Process Loading Evaluation 2013 Population : 134,894 (inlcudes Rockwood) Parameter Actual Typical Per Capita Flows and Loads Per Capita Wastewater Flow 366 L/d per person 350-500 L/d per person Per Capita BOD 5 Loading 65g/d per person 80 g/d per person Per Capita TSS Loading 80 g/d per person 90 g/d per person Per Capita TKN Loading 13 g/d per person 13 g/d per person Ratios Flows: Peak Day/Annual Average 1.78 2.5-4.0 Raw: TSS/BOD 5 1.2 0.8-1.2 Raw: TKN/BOD 5 0.2 0.1-0.2 Another important part of the CPE is to conduct a Sludge Accountability on the process. Sludge accountability compares measured sludge production from the data collected and compares it to projected sludge production results. This comparison, which has a best practice acceptable range of plus/minus 15%, is valuable in measuring the reliability of the data being collected to properly represent the facility performance. Contributing factors to successful sludge accountability include accurate sampling and a knowledgeable facility staff to take care of the day to day process requirements. PAGE 2
For 2013 the City of Guelph sludge accountability resulted in an 8% accuracy which is well within the acceptable variability and therefore validates the reliability of the data collection and analysis. Sludge Accountability Summary 2013 Reported Sludge kg/d Projected Sludge kg/d Intentional Wasting Unintentional Wasting Sidestream 11900 Primary Sludge Production 5,883 118.7 Biological Sludge Production 3,385 1020 Chemical Sludge Production 839 Total 10,999 10,107 Sludge Accountability 8% Note: plus/minus 15% is best practice Appendix E demonstrates the calculations that were made to obtain the above results. PAGE 3
1.0 Wastewater Flow A Parshall flume complete with secondary instrumentation is provided immediately downstream of the facilities chlorine contact chamber. The effluent flow rate through the flume is continuously measured, integrated and totalized on a daily basis in the facilities Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA). This daily data is manipulated electronically in spreadsheet software to calculate and report the average total daily flow and maximum total daily flow for each month. Flow data for the 2013 reporting period is included as Table 1.1 of this report as well as represented in chart 1.0. A comparison of total flow per month between 2012 and 2013 can be seen in chart 1.2 The average total daily flow for the year 2013 is 49.440 MLD. A maximum total daily flow of 87.900 ML was recorded on April 12 th 2013. Table 1.1 Wastewater Flow Data, Year 2013 2013 Average Total Daily Flow ML Maximum Total Daily Flow ML January 48.508 66.008 February 47.908 55.681 March 55.188 86.837 April 62.158 87.851 May 49.965 58.805 June 47.901 54.325 July 50.548 73.730 August 44.147 61.505 September 44.742 57.508 October 47.693 59.222 November 50.286 65.926 December 44.237 51.667 Annual Average 49.440 x Winter Average 49.225 x Summer Average 49.593 x The Summer period is April 1 to October 31. The Winter period is November 1 to March 31 PAGE 4
Chart 1.1 Chart 1.2 illustrates the total monthly flow comparison between 2012 and 2013; to which the facility saw a 6.9% increase in total flow. Chart 1.2 PAGE 5
2.0 Raw Influent Wastewater Quality Considerable effort is undertaken in monitoring the characteristics of WWTP influent, effluent and intermediate process streams to provide the necessary data for process optimization by plant staff and meet Environmental Compliance Approval monitoring and reporting requirements. Twenty-four hour flow proportional composite samples are routinely collected and analyzed. The raw influent wastewater data analyzed by the Guelph WWTP and CALA (Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation) certified outside laboratories is combined and a monthly summary is presented in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Raw Influent Wastewater Quality Data, Year 2013 2013 ph 1 cbod 5 TSS P Tot TKN NH 3 -N (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) January 7.62 225.00 244.19 5.46 44.03 24.20 February 7.71 185.00 260.22 5.67 42.89 23.88 March 7.70 192.50 229.83 4.83 39.60 20.65 April 7.60 180.00 211.19 4.30 35.27 18.10 May 7.56 150.00 187.56 4.59 37.26 21.92 June 7.58 131.20 177.44 3.86 34.97 19.46 July 7.60 148.00 213.08 4.20 30.66 18.51 August 7.62 153.33 258.42 4.84 35.42 18.40 September 7.71 194.00 234.00 5.11 40.59 24.15 October 7.65 222.00 265.31 5.25 39.95 21.05 November 7.69 188.00 266.92 5.29 39.94 22.81 December 7.66 323.33 280.42 5.98 43.33 25.44 Annual Average 7.6 191 236 4.9 38.7 21.5 Winter Average 7.7 223 256 5.4 42.0 23.4 Summer Average 7.6 168.4 221.0 4.6 36.3 20.2 PAGE 6
3.0 Final Effluent Quality Primary sedimentation and secondary activated sludge treatment is provided by four separate treatment trains namely Plants 1, 2, 3 and 4. Plants 1, 2, and 3 incorporate conventional activated sludge with the secondary effluent from each of these three plants directed to a common pump well. The combined secondary effluent is lifted by vertical turbine pumps to the rotating biological contactors (RBC) influent distribution channel and evenly split to each of the four RBC trains. Each of the four RBC trains consists of eight shafts in series. The process objective of the RBC s is to provide additional biological treatment for the oxidation of ammonia. Effluent from the RBC trains is discharged to a common sand filter influent channel and distributed to the sand filters for additional suspended solids capture. The Plant 4 treatment train incorporates extended aeration activated sludge and is capable of complete nitrification. As such plant 4 secondary effluent can be directed to a separate pump well which discharges to the common sand filter influent channel for distribution to the sand filters for additional suspended solids capture. Plant 4 secondary effluent can also be directed through the RBC s as plants 1, 2 and 3. The final treated effluent passes through a Parshall flume and is measured by an ultrasonic transmitter. Both the transmitter and remote recorder are calibrated yearly to ensure accuracy of total flows. (See appendix C) A Plant Flow Diagram is included as Appendix A. Design data for the treatment units are listed in Appendix B. Effluent quality requirements as specified in the Environmental Compliance Approval differ for summer and winter conditions. These limits and performance charts can be referred to in Appendix H. An automatic sampling system collects a series of flow paced aliquots from the chlorine contact chamber and combines them in a container within a refrigerated compartment to produce a 24- hour flow proportional composite sample of the treated WWTP effluent. This composite sample is then analyzed in the Guelph WWTP laboratory on-site. Routinely, samples are submitted to an independent Standards Council of Canada (SCC) accredited laboratory for analysis and WWTP laboratory QA/QC. The combined results from the Guelph WWTP and independent laboratory are tabulated in Table 3.1. This table provides a monthly summary of final effluent quality data. Residual chlorine and sodium bisulphite are constantly monitored in the chlorine contact chamber in keeping with the year round requirement for disinfection. Both sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulphite application and control is provided by ORP instrumentation. The objective of 200 E. Coli CFU/100mL of sample was met. Performance data is presented in Table 3.1. As mandated by Environment Canada, the facility has optimized the disinfection/de-chlorination system to reduce the total residual chlorine to the speed river to 0.02mg/L. In addition to independent SCC accredited laboratory analyses, the City of Guelph has continued to develop the quality assurance measures initiated in 1998 at the Guelph WWTP analytical laboratory. This includes continued development and support of a quality management system for laboratory PAGE 7
operations designed to meet the requirements of the ISO/IEC 17025 Standard needed for laboratory accreditation. In 2013 the laboratory was assessed for ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation (CALA). The assessment went well and accreditation is pending in 2014. The scope of testing the laboratory provides has also been increased to include TKN. Work is continuing to increase the scope of testing to include BOD 5 and C BOD 5. The quality system measures and best practices that have been put in place that qualify the laboratory for formal accreditation are the following: All test methods have been or are in the process of being validated to prove method performance on site and prove any modifications to test methods are technically valid. A quality control program has been instituted for all test methods that have undergone validation. Typical QC samples introduced in a batch of 20 samples includes as appropriate: a method blank, a quality control standard, a calibration check standard, and a sample duplicate. Matrix spike samples are also analysed to monitor sample matrix interferences. Control limits for QC samples are statistically determined. When control limits are exceeded, corrective action is taken and either the analysis is repeated or the data is qualified. Participation in an external proficiency testing regime provided by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation (CALA). Internal training program to ensure laboratory analysts are adequately trained when performing a test method and have proven proficient at the test methods they perform A Continual improvement program is in place to provide a systematic method of identifying and addressing issues that would bring about change and eventually impede the consistent production of valid test results. Annual ISO/IEC 17025 calibration of key measurement instruments for lab balances, pipettes, and thermometers. A daily monitoring program ensures verification of calibration for these instruments. A formal document control and records management program is in place to ensure changes to documents are authorized and controlled and laboratory records are managed to ensure integrity. PAGE 8
Table 3.1 Final Effluent Quality Data, Year 2013 2013 ph Temp 1 cbod 5 BOD5 TSS P Tot TKN Total Ammonium Nitrogen NO 3 -N NO 2 -N 5 E. Coli TCR SBR Concentration Loading Concentration Loading Concentration Loading Concentration Loading Concentration Loading 0 C (mg/l) (kg/d) (mg/l) (kg/d) (mg/l) (kg/d) (mg/l) (kg/d) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (CFU/100 ml) (mg/l) (mg/l) Jan 7.78 13.78 2.60 142.83 2.80 152.72 2.70 138.13 0.11 5.41 2.12 0.32 16.48 29.41 0.19 14.02 0.00 1.81 Feb 7.80 12.64 2.17 103.44 2.00 96.53 4.09 196.47 0.11 5.28 1.82 0.24 12.11 29.24 0.10 10.00 0.00 1.71 March 7.78 12.07 2.17 123.40 3.00 166.31 3.88 209.85 0.11 6.39 1.52 0.46 31.84 26.95 0.17 10.00 0.00 1.24 Apr 7.76 13.01 2.00 127.67 2.25 146.61 2.58 163.39 0.10 6.55 2.53 1.22 90.26 23.44 0.25 10.72 0.00 1.02 May 7.89 15.99 2.00 98.76 4.50 227.53 1.84 91.54 0.11 5.39 1.33 0.11 5.31 27.19 0.06 11.89 0.00 0.98 June 7.89 18.25 2.50 115.43 3.00 137.55 2.00 95.30 0.13 6.10 1.15 0.10 4.54 27.34 0.05 20.66 0.00 1.10 July 7.93 20.07 2.14 114.06 2.29 121.24 1.96 100.74 0.17 8.43 1.40 0.51 33.52 24.39 0.14 57.18 0.00 1.40 Aug 7.93 20.88 2.00 85.96 2.00 85.96 1.88 82.61 0.24 10.26 1.42 0.08 3.58 27.40 0.04 41.83 0.00 1.09 Sept 7.94 20.16 2.14 96.03 2.14 96.03 1.88 84.68 0.21 9.35 1.25 0.11 4.89 30.00 0.05 30.24 0.00 1.07 Oct 7.90 19.40 2.29 115.41 2.14 108.49 1.92 92.29 0.19 9.05 1.18 0.12 5.68 28.18 0.07 17.41 0.00 2.52 Nov 7.92 16.78 2.00 97.46 2.00 97.46 1.88 93.70 0.15 7.65 1.47 0.22 11.38 28.94 0.10 21.46 0.00 1.21 Dec 7.92 14.58 2.00 88.25 2.20 97.62 1.72 76.09 0.15 6.64 1.28 0.12 5.53 29.51 0.04 12.99 0.00 2.18 Annual Average 7.9 16.5 2.2 109.1 2.5 127.8 2.4 118.7 0.1 7.2 1.5 0.3 18.8 27.7 0.1 21.5 0.0 1.4 Winter Average 7.9 15.5 2.2 112.3 2.3 118.2 2.6 128.4 0.1 7.1 1.5 0.23 12.7 28.6 0.1 14.8 0.0 1.9 Summer Average 7.9 18.3 2.2 107.6 2.6 131.9 2.0 101.5 0.2 7.9 1.5 0.32 21.1 26.8 0.1 27.1 0.0 1.3 Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 All cbod 5 and BOD5 analysis conducted by independent CAEAL accredited laboratory only. SBR, sodium bisulphite residual All analyses based on 24-hour flow paced composite samples. The Summer period is April 1 to October 31. The Winter period is November 1 to March 31. Escherichia Coli values are calculated geometric means. n/a = not applicable Nr = Not Recorded 7 As per the certificate of approval, total chlorine residual is equal to or less than 0.02mg/L PAGE 9
4.0 Solids Handling and Disposal The raw sludge produced at the WWTP is thickened in the primary clarifiers and pumped to the anaerobic digestion system which consists of four primary digesters and one secondary digester. The waste activated sludge from all Plants are thickened in a rotary drum thickener and then sent to one of the primary digesters. Following stabilization by anaerobic digestion, biosolids were directed from the secondary digester to the dewatering facility. The dewatering facility consists of four belt filter presses and associated auxiliary equipment. A simplified solids flow diagram of the WWTP is presented in Appendix A. A summary of solids production, handling and disposal is presented in Table 4.1. The results of routine laboratory analysis of the dewatered biosolids are presented in Table 4.2. The results of routine E. coli analysis of the dewatered biosolids are presented in Table 4.3. In reference to Table 4.3 only biosolids that received the Lystek treatment were land applied. The Rotary Drum Thickener (to thicken Waste Activated Sludge) is automated to run 24hrs/day, provided sufficient waste activated sludge was available. The unit used a combination of cationic and anionic polymers at a ratio of approximately 1.4:1 to assist in thickening the waste activated sludge to 4.29% solids. Table 4.4 will reveal in more detail the monthly totals. During the reporting period 4349 dry tonnes of dewatered biosolids were generated. The facility anticipates a similar quantity of biosolids generation for the next reporting period. This reporting period s land application season was very challenging due to the wet weather and resulting limited field availability. Of the total biosolids produced in 2013, 19% were beneficially land applied. As per Table 4.1, 841.57 dry tonnes of Lystek processed dewatered biosolids were land applied. Application of this Class A equivalent biosolid material (US EPA 503, CFR Part 40) to registered site numbers HLT-1040, HLT-5072, GLP-6067, GLP-17013, GLP-17012, GLP-7513, GLP-11037 occurred through the haulage and application services provided by Terratec Environmental Incorporated. The quality of the Lystek material can be found in Table 4.2. The compost infrastructure was utilized as required to load trucks with dewatered biosolids cake to support the landfill aspect of the biosolids program. The remainder of the dewatered biosolids were transported to and disposed of at three landfills. See Table 4.1 for details. PAGE 10
Table 4.1 Solids Handling and Disposal, Year 2013 Month Average Digested Solids Total Solids (%) Digested Solids Pumped to Dewatering (m 3 /month) Average Dewatered Cake Total Solids (%) Cake Production (wet tonne) Cake Production (dry tonne) Average Lystek Total Solids (%) Lystek to Land Application (m3/month) Cake Equivalent (dry tonne) Cake to Lystek (wet tonne) Cake & Bulking to Landfill (wet tonne) Cake to Landfill (wet tonne) Combined to Landfill (wet tonne) Jan 2.70 18232.87 22.55 2297.99 518.20 - - - - - 1156.91 1156.91 Feb 1.80 16664.30 16.70 1890.69 315.74 - - - - - 1000.45 1000.45 Mar 1.25 20036.20 18.50 1425.05 263.63 - - - - - 1141.13 1141.13 Apr 1.60 19030.04 21.07 1521.15 320.51 15.40 - - - - 1253.95 1253.95 May 2.07 19305.90 22.13 1900.88 420.67 15.62 - - - - 708.36 708.36 Jun 2.15 17495.65 24.75 1599.81 395.95 16.35 568.46 92.94 375.53-838.60 838.60 Jul 1.90 17766.63 23.30 1525.03 355.33 16.10 1216.01 195.78 840.25-340.32 340.32 Aug 2.10 15395.99 23.95 1421.01 340.33 16.38 763.17 125.01 521.95-256.11 256.11 Sep 2.10 16135.97 22.10 1613.98 356.69 14.88 1377.88 205.03 927.73-234.65 234.65 Oct 1.90 17851.50 20.06 1779.81 357.03 14.46 1068.61 154.52 770.29-479.27 479.27 Nov 1.60 19012.12 19.85 1613.12 320.20 15.60 437.78 68.29 344.05-1005.08 1005.08 Dec 2.00 18278.79 20.70 1859.02 384.82 - - - - - 1156.32 1156.32 Totals 215,205.96 20,447.55 4,349.11 5,431.91 841.57 3,779.80 0.00 9,571.15 9,571.15 Average 1.93 21.31 15.63 Month Lystek to Land Application Lystek to Digester Total Lystek Disposal Total Volume to Landfill 0.00 %Solids m3 applied Dry Tonnes m3 Dry Tonnes m3 Dry Tonnes Landfill Site Wet Jan - - - - - - - Green Lane Tonnes Feb - - - - - - - 38593 3rd Line Mar - - - - - - - St Thomas Ontario Apr 15.40 - - - - - - N5P 3T2 May 15.62 - - - - - - C of A # A051601 Jun 16.35 568.46 92.94 - - 568.46 92.94 Jul 16.10 1216.01 195.78 - - 1216.01 195.78 Total Volume to Landfill 0.00 Aug 16.38 763.17 125.01 - - 763.17 125.01 Sep 14.88 1377.88 205.03 - - 1377.88 205.03 Oct 14.46 1068.61 154.52 - - 1068.61 154.52 Nov 15.60 437.78 68.29 - - 437.78 68.29 Dec - - - - - - - Totals 5431.9 841.6 0.0 0.0 5431.91 841.57 DEC Permit # 9-2911-00119/00005 Lystek Land Application Report Facility/Program # 32811 Site Number Total Area Application Total Volume NASM Plan Applied Rate Applied Total Volume to Landfill 9,571.15 No. acres m3/acre m3 Landfill Site Wet HLT-1040 20294 2.35 16.18 38.02 Ridge Landfill HLT-1040 20294 94.64 15.78 1516.55 BFI Canada Inc. HLT-5072 21019 12.91 16.19 229.90 20262 Erieau Road GLP-6067 21180 18.4 16.59 305.25 P.O. Box 1871 GLP-17013 23156 86.4 16.19 1377.21 Blenheim, Ontario GLP-17012 21248 40.82 16.19 649.35 N0P 1A0 GLP-7513 20484 40.79 23.07 877.85 C of A # A021601 GLP-11037 20504 23.2 19.83 437.78 - - - - - Totals 319.51 5431.91 Terratec Environmental System C of A Number: 4560-4QDFY9 Landfill Site Republic Waste Location Allied Waste Niagara Fall Landfill, LLC 5600 Niagara Falls Boulevard Niagara Falls, New York 14304 Wet Tonnes PAGE 11
Table 4.2 Biosolids Metal Analysis, Year 2013 Total Solids (mg/l) Total Volatile Solids (%) ph (Units) C:N Ratio TKN (ug/g) NH3 + NH4 as N (Total Ammonium Nitrogen) (ug/g) NO3- + NO2- as N (Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen) (ug/g) Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Jan 21.7-61.0-7.4-6.0-43,700-8,420-3.0 - Feb 21.3-55.9-7.2-4.8-52,200-8,440-3.0 - Mar 22.9-59.1-7.4-6.1-41,900-8,730-3.0 - Apr 21.1 15.4 60.8 56.9 7.6 9.3 5.2 9.1 48,200 27,100 10,350 8,640 2.0 8.0 May 22.5 15.6 62.1 56.8 7.4 9.1 4.4 5.9 178,566 42,820 34,160 9,910 4.0 12.2 Jun 23.0 16.4 61.6 56.2 7.5 8.4 5.0 4.8 53,150 46,250 10,200 17,300 3.0 4.5 Jul 23.6 16.1 61.5 56.1 7.7 8.9 5.8 5.4 45,450 44,260 11,550 13,724 3.0 16.4 Aug 23.3 16.4 60.4 54.5 7.6 9.4 5.4 5.6 49,750 43,516 9,350 8,896 6.0 116.7 Sep 22.3 14.9 59.9 54.0 8.0 9.0 5.6 5.3 46,300 43,500 8,285 10,692 13.0 635.0 Oct 20.1 14.5 62.9 55.6 7.4 9.2 5.3 5.2 51,966 46,720 9,300 9,740 16.0 116.0 Nov 19.8-64.0-7.4-5.5-51,850-8,685-101.5 - Dec 21.4-62.8-7.6-5.2-52,200-10,100-30.0 - Organic N (mg/kg) Total P (Total Phosperous) (ug/g) Total K (Potassium) (ug/g) Cd (mg/kg) (Cadmium) Cr (mg/kg) (Chromium) Co (mg/kg) (Cobalt) Cu (mg/kg) (Copper) Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Jan 35,000-30,000-700 - 1.12-76 - 6.65-720 - Feb 44,000-31,000-700 - 1.20-76 - 5.80-720 - Mar 33,000-32,000-700 - 1.40-68 - 5.00-660 - Apr 38,000 18,000 29,000 30,000 700 47,000 1.30 1.30 69 72 4.70 4.50 645 620 May 143,666 33,000 30,333 28,400 700 50,600 1.27 1.26 77 78 5.30 4.72 653 622 Jun 43,000 28,500 33,500 28,000 750 48,500 1.15 1.20 94 84 6.70 5.95 720 640 Jul 34,000 30,400 29,000 27,400 650 43,000 1.15 1.16 82 77 6.60 6.54 720 674 Aug 40,500 34,333 31,500 28,500 600 51,833 1.20 1.10 84 77 6.85 6.83 770 702 Sep 38,000 32,750 30,000 27,500 600 49,250 1.30 1.80 95 86 7.55 7.53 800 713 Oct 42,333 37,000 30,666 28,800 766 57,400 1.20 1.08 82 75 7.40 7.00 747 680 Nov 43,000-30,500-800 - 1.15-82 - 6.85-730 - Dec 42,000-33,000-800 - 1.10-92 - 8.10-700 - Pb (mg/kg) (Lead) Mo (mg/kg) (Molybdenum) Ni (mg/kg) (Nickel) Zn (mg/kg) (Zinc) Hg (mg/kg) (Mercury) As (mg/kg) (Aresenic) Se (mg/kg) Selenium Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Cake Lystek Jan 17.5-7.9-29.0-975 - 0.50-2.7-2.75 - Feb 27.0-8.6-29.0-11,100-0.68-2.8-2.70 - Mar 17.0-6.8-26.0-1,000-0.57-2.3-2.30 - Apr 16.0 20.0 7.4 8.3 25.0 26.0 935 1,000 0.58 0.62 2.8 2.4 2.80 2.40 May 19.3 16.8 7.7 8.1 25.7 24.2 1,040 972 0.67 0.62 2.6 2.5 2.77 2.64 Jun 22.5 19.5 8.0 9.1 29.0 26.5 1,050 980 0.75 1.06 2.7 2.6 2.70 2.60 Jul 24.5 21.8 8.8 9.1 28.5 28.6 1,050 1,050 0.61 0.65 2.9 2.7 2.60 2.54 Aug 23.5 21.8 8.5 9.5 29.5 27.0 1,200 1,100 0.97 0.70 3.1 2.9 2.75 2.67 Sep 25.5 22.5 9.0 9.4 27.5 27.3 1,250 1,100 0.58 0.57 3.0 2.6 2.95 2.58 Oct 22.7 20.8 10.2 10.6 27.7 25.0 1,133 1,060 0.53 0.54 2.5 2.4 2.70 2.48 Nov 23.0-9.2-27.0-1,050-0.50-2.6-2.70 - Dec 18.0-8.8-30.0-1,000-0.49-2.6-2.50 - PAGE 12
Table 4.3 Dewatered Biosolids Analysis, Year 2013 E.coli DWCC (Presses) E.coli DWCC (Presses) E.coli DWCC (Presses) E.coli DWCC (Presses) E.coli DWCC (Presses) Date CFU/gm dry Date CFU/gm dry Date CFU/gm dry Date CFU/gm dry Date CFU/gm dry 4-Jan-13 26000 34057 15-Mar-13 38000 26378 3-Jun-13 3600 11423 13-Sep-13 240000 34554 6-Dec-13 8200 31005 11-Jan-13 27000 28379 18-Mar-13 9000 23619 7-Jun-13 63000 12568 16-Sep-13 36000 39081 13-Dec-13 53000 21482 14-Jan-13 6100 20593 22-Mar-13 22000 26445 21-Jun-13 110000 22888 20-Sep-13 140000 58974 16-Dec-13 13000 16770 18-Jan-13 8300 13730 25-Mar-13 13000 17685 24-Jun-13 11000 22888 23-Sep-13 16000 66327 20-Dec-13 36000 21237 21-Jan-13 9600 10703 5-Apr-13 800 6736 28-Jun-13 43000 42550 27-Sep-13 60000 46900 23-Dec-13 9200 21856 25-Jan-13 55000 12787 8-Apr-13 6100 6112 5-Jul-13 17000 30667 30-Sep-13 14000 37037 - - - 28-Jan-13 2900 10618 12-Apr-13 48000 7428 12-Jul-13 40000 23815 7-Oct-13 27000 24544 - - - 1-Feb-13 7600 10386 15-Apr-13 26000 8834 15-Jul-13 26000 29528 18-Oct-13 130000 41438 - - - 4-Feb-13 5300 8953 19-Apr-13 31000 22041 26-Jul-13 42000 29355 21-Oct-13 46000 38775 - - - 8-Feb-13 16000 6575 29-Apr-13 6100 22041 29-Jul-13 16000 28913 25-Oct-13 37000 49439 - - - 15-Feb-13 18000 10378 3-May-13 6500 13370 31-Jul-13 4000000 91433 28-Oct-13 30000 50758 - - - 22-Feb-13 25000 13977 6-May-13 7000 9631 2-Aug-13 40000 101829 31-Oct-13 120000 49753 - - - 25-Feb-13 7000 14983 10-May-13 12000 7597 9-Aug-13 35000 97292 4-Nov-13 230000 74397 - - - 27-Feb-13 23000 16406 13-May-13 38000 12002 16-Aug-13 34000 117467 15-Nov-13 20000 63792 - - - 1-Mar-13 16000 15930 17-May-13 12000 13990 19-Aug-13 14000 28572 18-Nov-13 63000 76793 - - - 4-Mar-13 14000 13781 24-May-13 43000 22024 30-Aug-13 22000 24605 22-Nov-13 230000 90356 - - - 8-Mar-13 14000 16388 27-May-13 10000 21043 6-Sep-13 27000 23059 25-Nov-13 35000 56434 11-Mar-13 65000 21248 31-May-13 11000 15435 9-Sep-13 10000 16982 29-Nov-13 14000 51620 E.coli Lystek E.coli Lystek E.coli Lystek E.coli Lystek E.coli Lystek Date CFU/gm dry CFU/gm dry Date CFU/gm dry CFU/gm dry Date CFU/gm dry CFU/gm dry Date CFU/gm dry CFU/gm dry Date CFU/gm dry 30-Apr-13 10 10 17-Jul-13 10 10 11-Sep-13 10 10 - - - - - - 3-May-13 10 10 24-Jul-13 10 10 18-Sep-13 10 10 - - - - - - 6-May-13 10 10 31-Jul-13 10 10 25-Sep-13 10 10 - - - - - - 7-May-13 10 10 7-Aug-13 10 10 2-Oct-13 10 10 - - - 8-May-13 10 10 13-Aug-13 10 10 9-Oct-13 10 10 - - - 15-May-13 10 10 14-Aug-13 10 10 16-Oct-13 5600 49 - - - 19-Jun-13 10 10 15-Aug-13 10 10 23-Oct-13 10 49 - - - 26-Jun-13 10 10 21-Aug-13 10 10 30-Oct-13 10 49 - - - 3-Jul-13 10 10 28-Aug-13 10 10 - - - - - 9-Jul-13 10 10 4-Sep-13 10 10 - - - - - - CFU/gm dry PAGE 13
Table 4.4 Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Report (TWAS) Year 2013 2013 Volume to TWAS Volume from TWAS Reduction Solids m 3 m 3 % % D.S. Jan 10,340 1,865 82 5.60 Feb 12,932 2,731 79 4.03 Mar 17,546 4,425 75 4.24 Apr 12,528 3,176 75 4.59 May 12,989 2,678 79 4.05 Jun 7,507 1,250 83 3.90 Jul 8,806 1,006 89 4.11 Aug 9,358 846 91 4.24 Sep 12,980 1,804 86 4.37 Oct 13,086 2,081 84 4.43 Nov 12,296 2,133 83 4.27 Dec 15,266 2,333 85 3.63 Totals 145,634 26,328 82.5 4.29 PAGE 14
5.0 Unusual Events/Process Upsets The facility has no provision for primary treatment or raw sewage bypass directly to the Speed River but does have provision for secondary treatment, tertiary (RBC s and or sand filtration) ass or partial tertiary treatment bypass. There were no incidents of secondary treatment bypass. There were a total of seven partial sandfilter bypasses and zero full tertiary bypasses in 2013. The total bypass flow for 2013 was equivalent to 0.05% of the total flow received at the facility. All events are listed in Table 5.1 and were reported to the MOE SAC Office as well as notification made to downstream stakeholders as per standard operating protocol. Table 5.1 Bypass Summary 2013 Date Occurrence Number Duration hrs:min m 3 cbod 5 mg/l TSS mg/l NH 3 -N mg/l TP mg/l Partial or Full Tertairy Bypass Chlorinated January 13 2015-93W-ME7 8:19 3241.8 3.0 5.0 0.18 0.13 Partial Yes March 11 7052-95Q3GR 6:08 4897.1 2.0 1.0 0.05 0.02 Partial Yes July 7 112188 3:00 1909.3 <2.0 <2.0 0.18 0.11 Partial Yes November 28 8018 0:25 5.0 <2.0 <1.0 0.09 0.05 Partial Yes December 2 2402-9DZMGA 0:56 1.5 <2.0 <1.0 0.05 0.07 Partial Yes December 3 1665/9E369V 3:45 218.9 <2.0 1.0 0.06 0.10 Partial Yes December 4 6044-9E3RXL 3:46 94.2 <2.0 2.0 0.08 0.10 Partial Yes Partial Tertiary Bypass: Flow that has received rotating biological contactor (RBC) treatment, but not sandfiltration.full Tertiary Bypass: Flow that has received full secondary treatment PAGE 15
6.0 WWTP Projects and Upgrades The following is a summary of Capital Projects, upgrades and major maintenance conducted during the reporting period. TABLE 6.1 Capital Project Summary, Year 2013 Project SCADA upgrade at the plant Ongoing Process Operation Centre Construction Ongoing Biosolids Storage Facility Detailed Design Ongoing Anammox-Side stream Treatment Detailed Design Ongoing Digester 2 Cleaning project Completed Digester 2 Gas proofing and repairs/refurbishment Project Ongoing Status TABLE 6.2 Maintenance Project Summary, Year 2013 Project Implementation of a pump replacement program for facility Ongoing Installation of Safety fall protection in all plants Complete Refurbish headwork s aluminum gate Complete Inspection of Safety guards & railings plant wide Ongoing Replace air compressor in dewatering Completed Install new Seepex pump for dewatering/lystek Completed Digester#2 mixers removed and serviced On going Status Computerized Maintenance Management System, upgrade & reporting Ongoing into 2014 Upgrade gates at Sand filter building Implemented Lighting (energy efficiency) retrofit plant wide On going Install gas flow monitoring for Co-generation plant Complete Upgrade of SCADA modules and related equipment & remote access Implemented PAGE 16
Optimization The City of Guelph wastewater facility continued throughout 2013 to strive for a comprehensive optimization program. Maintaining the objectives of the program to work with City staff, regulatory agencies, and external partners and stakeholders to achieve exemplary, sustainable, and economical performance from the physical and human asset. Since September 2011 data has been generated to support a capacity demonstration. The demonstration involves placing several unit processes on standby while treating the current wastewater flow in the tanks remaining in service. These demonstrations may potentially demonstrate capability greater than the current rated capacities of each liquid train. The existing four liquid trains have a combined nominal rated capacity of 64 MLD. If approved, the successful capacity demonstrations would result in a re-rating of the existing facility. Capacity that is demonstrated through re-rating would extend the timelines of the current upgrade program and schedule. Strategically, any demonstrated capacity that results in either capital cost deferral or savings supports the City s Strategic Objective of the City that makes a difference. The facility is recognized as one of the leading wastewater treatment plants along the Grand River Watershed. A commitment to the optimization of all aspects of the process so to continue to be a leader in the protection of the environment and to establish best management practices is firmly in place. PAGE 17