Mirador San Jose Wastewater Servicing - Tech Memo

Mirador San Jose
Wastewater Servicing
Mirador San Jose Wastewater

Servicing Study
FINAL
Prepared for:
Hola Ecuador Property
Development Inc.
This Technical Memorandum is protected by copyright and was

prepared by R.V. Anderson Associates Limited for the account
of the Hola Ecuador Property Development Inc. It shall not be
copied without permission. The material in it reflects our best
judgment in light of the information available to R.V. Anderson
Associates Limited at the time of preparation. Any use which a
third party makes of this Technical Memorandum, or any
reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the
responsibility of such third parties. R.V. Anderson Associates
Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered
by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based
on this Technical Memorandum.
RVA 163348
October 14, 2016
October 14, 2016 RVA 163348
Hola Ecuador Property Development Inc.

554 Rue Sainte Cécile, Trois-Rivières,
QC G9A 1K8
Attention: Mr. Gordon Poole
Dear Mr. Poole:
Re: Mirador San Jose Wastewater Servicing Study
Please find enclosed a PDF version of the Final Report on Mirador San Jose Wastewater
Servicing Study.
We trust that this Report meets the HEPD’s requirements.
Yours very truly,
R.V. ANDERSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Harpreet Rai, PhD, P.Eng
Encl.
Mirador San Jose Wastewater Servicing -2- R.V. Anderson Associates Limited
October 14, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hola Ecuador Property Development Inc., on behalf of the Urbanization Mirador San Jose,
retained the services of RV Anderson Associates Limited to identify and evaluate
alternative solutions for wastewater servicing of the existing, as well as planned future
development at the Mirador San Jose urban village in Manabi, Ecuador.
A background review was conducted that consisted of an analysis of the existing and
planned future wastewater infrastructure, a review of previously reported problems, a
review of previous engineering studies undertaken by the Mirador San Jose, soil conditions,
local regulatory requirements and local geographic and other environmental features in the
region.
Given the density of the development and therefore limited availability of area for
appropriately sizing the drain fields coupled with the low soil permeability in a large zone at
the site, the current mode of sewage servicing (Biodigesters and black/grey water filtration
trenches) is unsustainable and risky from environmental, social and technical points of
view.
Five wastewater servicing and three wastewater treatment alternatives have therefore been
considered and evaluated based on the criteria of environmental, economic, technical and
social sustainability.
Based on these criteria, the recommended sewage servicing solution eliminates the need
for septic infrastructure (biodigesters) and is instead comprised of the following
components:
• Gravity collection and pumping of sewage from clusters of homes/commercial buildings

to a central location for treatment;
• Active on-site treatment of sewage and sludge stabilization and dewatering;
• Reuse of the treated effluent for groundwater recharge, and irrigation of the recreational
areas, house lawns and other ornamental vegetation in the development by the
recharged ground water;
• As required, disposal of excess treated effluent to Rio Salado depending on the

groundwater and river flow conditions; and
• Reuse of the stabilized biosolids as fertilizer/top soil for the recreational areas, house
lawns and other ornamental vegetation in the development.
Modular, active waste water treatment plants can be sourced in Ecuador which would allow
the overall treatment capacity to grow progressively as the construction of homes and
businesses progresses over the coming years.
October 14, 2016
The wastewater infrastructure must be designed such that it has the capacity to service the
design peak loadings and flows, and carries the flexibility to operate efficiently under
average as well as peak conditions.
Further engineering and hydrogeological investigation is required to bring the conceptual

design recommendations made in this Technical Memorandum to an implementation-ready
solution.
October 14, 2016
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................6
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .........................................................................................7

2.1 Current Wastewater Servicing ................................................................................. 7
2.2 Risks with the Current Servicing Strategy ................................................................ 7
2.2.1 Normal operation of septic system .....................................................................7
2.2.2 Overloading of a drain field ................................................................................7
2.2.3 Analysis of the existing drainage system............................................................8
2.3 Environmental Conditions ........................................................................................ 9
2.3.1 Geographic region and climate ..........................................................................9
2.3.2 Local vegetation and key species ....................................................................10
2.3.3 Natural features ...............................................................................................10
2.3.4 Soil Conditions .................................................................................................10
2.4 Opportunities and Constraints for Wastewater Servicing ........................................11
2.4.1 Effluent disposal to surface water ....................................................................11
2.4.2 Sub-surface disposal of effluent .......................................................................12
2.4.3 Ground water table ..........................................................................................12
2.4.4 Overall effluent disposal strategy .....................................................................12
2.4.5 Available footprint for wastewater facilities .......................................................12
2.5 Regulatory Requirements for Sewage Treatment and Disposal ..............................13
3.0 WASTEWATER SERVICING ALTERNATIVES .....................................................16

3.1 Servicing System Alternatives.................................................................................16
3.2 Description of Servicing System Alternatives ..........................................................16
3.3 Sludge and Biosolids ..............................................................................................16
3.3.1 Alternative S1 – Pump from settling tanks to a common forcemain to central or
decentralized plant(s) .......................................................................................17
3.3.2 Alternative S2 – Small bore gravity sewers leading from the settling tanks to
central or decentralized plant(s) .......................................................................19
3.3.3 Alternative S3 – Gravity collection from clusters to pumping stations to
forcemains to central or decentralized plant(s) .................................................20
3.3.4 Alternative S4 – Gravity collection from clusters to decentralized settling tanks
and small bore sewers to central or decentralized plant(s) ............................... 21
3.3.5 Alternative S5 – Gravity collection from clusters to decentralized plants and
conveyance of effluent to place of disposal ......................................................22
3.4 Evaluation of Servicing System Alternatives ...........................................................23
3.4.1 Evaluation Criteria of Servicing System Alternatives ........................................ 23
3.4.2 Evaluation Description Alternatives ..................................................................24
3.4.3 Evaluation Matrix of Servicing System Alternatives .......................................... 26
3.4.4 Preferred Service System Alternative...............................................................29
3.5 Treatment System Alternatives ...............................................................................29
3.6 Description of Treatment System Alternatives ........................................................29
October 14, 2016
3.6.1 Alternative A – Fully Active Treatment .............................................................29

3.6.2 Alternative B – Partially Active Treatment ........................................................31
3.6.1 Alternative C – Fully Passive Treatment ..........................................................32
3.7 Evaluation of Treatment System Alternatives..........................................................33
3.7.1 Evaluation Criteria of Treatment System Alternatives ...................................... 33
3.7.2 Evaluation Description of the Treatment Alternatives ....................................... 34
3.7.3 Evaluation Matrix of Treatment System Alternatives ........................................ 35
3.7.4 Preferred Treatment System Alternative ..........................................................37
4.0 PREFERRED WASTEWATER SERVICING ALTERNATIVE................................. 38
5.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS ....................................................................................40
6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................41
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 – Quality Criteria for Surface Water Disposal .....................................................13
Table 2.2 – Quality Criteria for TAN for Fresh Water Sources ............................................14
Table 2.3 – Discharge Limits to a Fresh Water Body..........................................................15
Table 2.4 – Discharge Limits to a Marine Body ..................................................................15
Table 3.1 – Legend in the Figures 3.1 to 3.5 ......................................................................16
Table 3.2 – Evaluation Summary of Servicing Alternatives.................................................27
Table 3.3 – Evaluation Summary of the Treatment Alternatives .........................................36
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 – Septic Effluent Drain Fields ............................................................................. 8
Figure 2.2 – Soil Types at the Site .....................................................................................11
Figure 3.1 – Servicing System Alternative S1.....................................................................17
Figure 3.6 – Fully Active Conventional Activated Sludge Treatment Facility ......................30
Figure 3.7 – Fully Active Package Treatment Facility ........................................................31
Figure 3.8 – Partially Active Lagoon-based Treatment Facility ..........................................32
Figure 3.9 – Fully Passive Lagoon-based Treatment Facility ............................................33
Figure 4.1 – Recommended Wastewater Servicing Solution Schematic............................39
Mirador San Jose Wastewater Technical Memorandum Page 6
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Hola Ecuador Property Development Inc. (HEPD) is in the process of developing a

resort project in the community of Mirador San Jose, Ecuador. The project site is
expected to be densely developed with relatively small lot sizes. There are 160 units
already built, with one cluster of 12 homes and the remainder of the homes being
distributed across the site.
The wastewater servicing methodology currently being used in the already built units is
one 600 L black water settling tank (called a biodigesters) per individual home, followed
by a shallow French drain for disposal on the lot. While the grey water from the kitchens,
showers and laundry goes directly into the French drains on the lots, the sewage from
the washrooms is settled in the biodigester prior to its flow to the French drains. The
biodigesters are designed to retain the settled sludge for up to one year prior to its
removal and disposal.
However, poor soil conditions and resulting excessive sewage accumulation in the
ground from the existing development, is currently leading to settlement problems with
some of the existing homes. In addition, there is a concern that the current servicing
solution will result in sewage break outs and unhealthy conditions. As such, the current
solution is unsustainable and problems are likely to increase over time and with further
development.
Pursuant to that, the objective of the current project is to identify and evaluate alternative
solutions for wastewater servicing of the existing, as well as planned future
development.
In line with the project requirements, the objectives of this Technical Memorandum are:
1. Review background information provided for the project;

2. Identify and Evaluate alternative solutions for wastewater servicing; and
3. Recommend the preferred alternative.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Current Wastewater Servicing
As mentioned, the existing wastewater servicing strategy consists of removal of

settleable solids from the raw sewage flowing out of individual properties in the settling
tanks (Biodigesters), and disposal of the settled effluent in subsurface French drains.
It should be noted that while the settling tank is termed as a biodigester, any digestion
that may occur in these tanks is passive and quite similar to that in typical septic tanks.
As such, while there may be some solids destruction via passive digestion, the sludge
removed from the digesters is likely to be similar to partially digested primary sludge,
also known as septage, produced in septic tanks.
2.2 Risks with the Current Servicing Strategy
2.2.1 Normal operation of septic system
As the partially treated wastewater from a septic tank enters a drain field, the natural
biological treatment process occurring in the soil leads to the formation of a biological
mat also known as biomat. At the trench-soil interface, the biomat grows according to
the amount of biodegradable organic matter that flows out of the septic tank. This is
where the bulk of biological wastewater treatment occurs in a septic system soil
absorption field. In properly operating absorption fields, the biomat is in equilibrium —
that is, about as many cells are growing as are dying.
The biomat comprises of a black, jelly-like mat that builds on the bottom and sidewalls of
the drain field trenches. It is composed of anaerobic microorganisms that attach
themselves to soil and rock particles and consume organic matter in the septic tank
effluent. Because the biomat has a low permeability, it retards the rate of flow out of the
trench into the drain field soil.
The aerobic bacteria responsible for controlling the growth of biomat, thereby successful
operation of a drain field are naturally occurring in the soil. However, their natural
concentration in the soil limits the rate at which these can consume the organic matter
(biomat in this case). Figure 2.1 (left) shows the absorption drain of a normally operating
drain field.
2.2.2 Overloading of a drain field
Organic and/or hydraulic overloading (Litres of sewage applied per unit surface area per
unit time) of the drain field can make the biomat growth rate exceed its removal rate by
the aerobic bacteria in the soil, which leads to increasing biomat accumulation along all
sides of the drains; therefore, increasingly reduced permeability. The final result is septic
system failure which leads to excessive ponding in the trenches, backflow into the septic
tank and potentially the houses, wet spots over the drain field due to surfacing of
effluent, and rapid grass growth. Figure 2.1 (right) shows the absorption drain of a failing
drain field.
The failure can be further compounded by low permeability soils where the failure could
not only be accelerated but also cause structural issues to the buildings due to localized
soil expansion. This has already been observed at some houses on the site. In the case
of continuation of the current practice, this phenomenon is likely to worsen as more
houses get built and the development becomes denser.
BIOMAT
Well operating drain field Failing drain field
Figure 2.1 – Septic Effluent Drain Fields
2.2.3 Analysis of the existing drainage system
The hydraulic loading rate of the French drains is a function of the soil permeability and
dictates the area required for effective treatment and dispersion of sewage through the
soil. For example, as per the Ontario regulations for individual sewage disposal systems
(Ontario Building Code 2012), the leaching bed serving a private dwelling with 2
bedrooms should have a distribution pipe length is governed by the formula:
L = QT/200
Where, L is the length of the distribution pipe/trench in meters, Q is the sewage flow in
L/d and T is the percolation time which is function of the soil permeability and defined as
time taken in minutes by water in minutes to travel through 1 cm of soil. The
geotechnical study by Hydro Suelos (Geotechnical Study Report, 2015) indicates soil
permeability range of 1.3 x10-3 cm/sec to 3 x10-5 cm/s, an average permeability of
approximately 1 x 10-4 cm/sec. These values translate into T values between 13 minutes
to 556 minutes, with an average value of 167 minutes. This T value range, and a flow of
625 L per house gives distribution pipe/trench drain length range of 41 m to 1738 m, with
an average length requirement of 522 m.
In addition, the distribution pipes/absorption trenches are required to have a minimum

setback of 5.0 m from a building or a structure, and a horizontal center to center
separation of 1.6 m between the trenches. While the separation distance is
recommended for efficient operation of the trench system the setback from the buildings
is based on the structural safety requirements as water underneath the structure
foundations can compromise the same.
With an average lot size of 200 m2 and covered area of 80% per lot, 40 m2 is left for the
French drains. In a 20m x10m (L x W) lot, this would leave a strip of 4 x 10m along the
width of the house, which from structural safety point of view does not meet the Ontario
guidelines for installation of absorption trench system, as the distance of the trench
would be less than 5 m from the house. From operational requirement point of view, at
the most two (2) French drains of 10 m length (1.6m c/c) can be fitted in this area while
maintaining a set back of 1.6 m from the house. Two 10 m long drains translate to 20 m
which is only 25% for the high permeability soils at the site, 4% for the average
permeability soils, and less than 2% for the low permeability clayey soils with a trench
length requirement of 1738 m.
Given the limited availability of area for appropriately sizing the drain fields coupled with
the low soil permeability in a large zone at the site, the current mode of sewage servicing
is unsustainable and risky from environmental, social and technical points of view.
2.3 Environmental Conditions
2.3.1 Geographic region and climate
The site selected for the implementation of the work is located on the banks of the
Pacific Ocean coast, on the side of the road Manta - Puerto Cayo, in an undeveloped
area with very flat relief. The platform for the development is raised relative to the height
of the beach.
The climate of this zone is directly related to the presence of the cold Humboldt current
and the warm El Niño and Panama currents. Average precipitation ranges from 300 to
1500 mm per year, with significant fluctuations between years. The coastal strip is drier
and precipitation averages at 300 mm. In El Niño years, which occur at 3-16 year
intervals, rainfall may be 200 times as high as a very dry year. At low elevations, the
mean annual temperature varies between 24°C and 26°C, with changes over the year
no more than 1-3°C.
In normal years, the dry and rainy seasons occur as very marked seasons with 90% of
rainfall concentrated between December and May, although the most falls in March. The
temperature rises during the dry season, thus increasing the effects of very low amounts
of rainfall.
2.3.2 Local vegetation and key species
This ecoregion depends heavily on the duration of the rainy season for plant growth and
reproduction activities The local vegetation in the region is generally characterized as
desert scrub, intermontane thorn, and deciduous, or semi-deciduous forest. Due to
seasonal drought, it can be considered a homogeneous arboreal mass that is quite
dense.
There are some tree species, such as golden trumpet, laurel, cedar, and ebony, that are
highly prized by the lumber industry and thus endangered. Other species including tagua
palm and barbasco are very valuable for the non-wood products they provide.
2.3.3 Natural features
To the North of the development is the Salt Water River, Rio Salado, which discharges
into the ocean. While the river discharges fresh water into the ocean during wet weather,
it has low or no flows during the dry summer period. In addition, there appears to be a
significant potential of backflow of the sea water into the river during dry weather and
high tide, especially during the dry season. As such, there is potentially good mixing of
sea water and fresh water at the mouth of the river. This intermixing has likely created
an estuary like nutrient rich condition at the mouth of the river. A small
tributary/distributary creek runs north from the northwest corner of the development to
Rio Salado.
Adjacent to and south of the development is a disturbed area that runs east up to the
end of Zone B of the development.
2.3.4 Soil Conditions
The soils in the area can be generally described as moist deposits of silty sands and
sandy loams of medium compactness mostly without gravel and fine granular material.
Most soils fall into the category of sandy soils to sandy loams, which are granular soils
with low plasticity null, no activity, no expansion and high to very high permeability.
Interspersed with these sands are pockets of dirty sand with fine plastics that change the
classification in areas of such pockets to clayey sands, which are slightly expansive with
medium to high permeability. In addition, there are significant areas with fine soils,
classified as medium plasticity clayey silt or silty clays, or high plasticity and plastic
mudstones. They are most active materials, which are slightly moist, with high
expansiveness, and low to medium permeability.
Figure 2.2 shows the areas corresponding to different soil types, with yellow indicating
the sandy soils with high permeability, blue the dirty sand with medium to high
permeability, and red, the clayey silt or silty clays with low to medium permeability
(Geotechnical Study Report, Hydro Suelos, 2015).
Sandy soil or sandy loam dirty sand with fine plastics clayey silt or silty clay
Figure 2.2 – Soil Types at the Site
As indicated, a large area corresponds to sandy-loam to dirty sand with medium to high
permeability. The fine, low-permeability and expansive soils are grouped in a strip
attached near the beach and emerge in a small area in the vicinity of sports fields –
recreation.
2.4 Opportunities and Constraints for Wastewater Servicing
2.4.1 Effluent disposal to surface water
The Salt River or Rio Salado provides an opportunity to dispose of the treated effluent
from the wastewater treatment facilities at Mirador. The river falls in the category of
marine and estuarine water body and has disposal requirements as summarized in
Table 2.1. However, with 90% of the annual rainfall being concentrated within 5 rainy
months (December to May), there are likely to be periods of no flow in the river resulting
in low or no dilution/assimilation potential for the disposed effluent. As such, the low/no
flow periods during dry months may require alternate means of disposal during such
periods.
2.4.2 Sub-surface disposal of effluent
This disposal strategy adopted may be suitable in areas of firm sandy soils with high
permeability, provided there is a sufficient area available for drain fields. However, given
the density of the planned development, and the sewage dispersion related issues
encountered in the early stage of development, this option appears technically
unsustainable under the given site conditions as explained in Section 2.2.3.
2.4.3 Ground water table
The geotechnical investigations also indicate that the water table was not observed at an
excavation depth up to 5.0 m, in spite of the soil being moist at these depths. The lowest
elevation in the development is approximately 12 m, which means that the ocean water
table is at least 12 m below the development. As such, the moisture observed in the
bore hole samples is likely from an unconfined aquifer above the sea level. Further,
since the annual rainfall is confined to only a small period during the year, the water level
of the aquifer would be likely prone is large variations. Given that subsurface water is
used for irrigating lawns and other non-drinking purposes by the residents, recycling of
the treated effluent to artificially recharge the aquifer provides an opportunity for effluent
disposal and reuse during dry period of the year.
2.4.4 Overall effluent disposal strategy
With potential unavailability of the surface water disposal option during the dry months
as explained in Section 2.3.1, along with likely scarcity of groundwater in the same
period, the overall effluent disposal strategy will have to be a combination of surface
water and sub-surface disposal options either used independently or in conjunction.
Recycling the treated effluent water back to the Mirador community, where it can be
used for flushing toilets, gardening, and irrigating recreational areas like play grounds
would therefore be an integral component of a sustainable servicing solution.
2.4.5 Available footprint for wastewater facilities
Due to the high density of the planned residential areas, there is very little space
available in any of the residential zones for construction of wastewater treatment
facilities. In addition, given that such facilities would require some buffer from the
residential areas further compounds this issue. The potential areas available for
construction of wastewater facilities include the narrow strip along the north edge of the
development and the low elevation area on the north east corner of the development
allocated for a recreational park.
2.5 Regulatory Requirements for Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Based on the opportunities and constraints for disposal of the fully- or partially-treated
sewage effluent, the 2 potentially sustainable options for the effluent disposal/reuse
include:
1. Groundwater recharge via recharge basins or well and reuse the recharged
ground water for irrigation of house lawns, public and recreational areas; and
2. Treated water disposal into the estuarine river, Rio Salado.
The overall disposal and/or reuse strategy for the treated effluent is likely to use a
combination of these 2 options.
Tables 2.1 and 2.2 summarize the key quality objectives for disposal of treated sewage
effluents in fresh water, and marine and estuarine water bodies, as per the Ecuador
regulations (Unified Secondary Legislation of the Ministry of Environment, February
2013).
The quality objectives represent the concentrations’ limits of the respective pollution
parameters within the water body at or below which the aquatic ecosystem of the body
will not be negatively impacted.
Table 2.1 – Quality Criteria for Surface Water Disposal
Parameter Unit Quality objective
Fresh water Marine and

estuarine water
cBOD5 mg/L < 2 – Aquatic life not impacted

2-6 – Aquatic life moderately Not applicable
impacted
TSS mg/L Maximum increase of 10% of the

-
background concentration
Total Ammonia-N mg/L Table 2.2 0.4
Dissolved oxygen % of
saturation > 80 > 60
concentration
Nitrate-N mg/L 13 200

Table 2.2 – Quality Criteria for TAN for Fresh Water Sources
Temperature Total Ammonia Nitrogen concentration in fresh water source

(°C)
pH 7.0 pH 7.5 pH 8.0 pH 8.5
15 6.98 2.22 0.715 0.239
20 4.82 1.54 0.499 0.171
25 3.37 1.08 0.354 0.125
30 2.39 0.77 0.256 0.094
As indicated the Marine- and Estuarine-quality objectives are less stringent in

comparison to those for fresh water sources like rivers which is due to the fact that the
estuarine bodies are species-rich and nutrient abundant ecosystems and therefore have
significantly more assimilative capacity than fresh water systems. Since Rio Salado is an
estuarine water body, the key objectives that would need to be met for effluent disposal
to it would be total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) and dissolved oxygen (DO). Although there
is an objective of 200 mg/L for Nitrate-N, this would not be a concern as the typical
nitrate level of a fully nitrified treated domestic effluent is in the range of 20-40 mg/L, and
therefore well below the quality objective. See Tables 3, 3a, and 3b of the applicable
regulatory document in the “Unified Secondary Legislation of the Ministry of
Environment, February 2013” for detailed water quality criteria for surface water and
marine/estuarine water bodies.
As such, these quality objectives are to be used to arrive at the effluent criteria of a
discharge from a wastewater treatment facility. This is to be determined based on the
difference between the quality objectives, and the background concentration of the
parameters in the water body upstream of the discharge. The difference quantifies the
capacity of the water body to assimilate pollutant loads without impacting the ecosystem.
This additional loading capacity can then be translated into the effluent limits and
objectives from a treatment facility based on the effluent flow.
However, in order to arrive at effluent criteria with the above method, the background
water quality of the water body is required. In the absence of such information, the
regulatory document prescribes the effluent concentrations as indicated in Tables 2.3
and 2.4.
Table 2.3 – Discharge Limits to a Fresh Water Body
Parameter Unit Permissible limit
cBOD5 mg/L 100

TSS mg/L 130
TP mg/L 10
TKN mg/L 30
TAN mg/L 50
Sulfates mg/L 1,000
Sulfides mg/L 0.5
Organochlorines mg/L 0.05
Table 2.4 – Discharge Limits to a Marine Body
Parameter Unit Permissible limit
Discharge in Discharge via

surf zones submerged outfall
cBOD5 mg/L 200 400
TKN mg/L 40 40
TSS mg/L 250 250
Sulfides mg/L 0.5 0.5
Organochlorines mg/L 0.05 0.05
See Tables 10 and 11 of the regulatory document in Appendix A for permissible

discharge limits for fresh water and marine water sources. Since the available surface
water source (i.e. Rio Salado) is an estuarine water body, the applicable discharge limits
for it are likely to be between those for fresh and marine waters.
While the regulation prohibits the use of untreated sewage for irrigation, it allows treated
sewage effluents meeting the standard set in Tables 4 and 5 of the regulatory document.
It is observed that the standards set out in these tables being stringent, may only be met
by providing advanced secondary or tertiary level treatment to the sewage.
3.0 WASTEWATER SERVICING ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Servicing System Alternatives
• Alternative S1 – Pump from settling tanks to a common forcemain to central or

decentralized plant(s)
• Alternative S2 – Small bore gravity sewers leading from the settling tanks to central
or decentralized plant(s)
• Alternative S3 – Gravity collection from clusters to pumping stations to forcemains to
central or decentralized plant(s)
• Alternative S4 – Gravity collection from clusters to decentralized settling tanks and
small bore sewers to central or decentralized plant(s)
• Alternative S5 – Gravity collection from clusters to decentralized plants and
conveyance of effluent to place of disposal.
3.2 Description of Servicing System Alternatives
Figures 3.1 to 3.5 show the conceptual layouts of the 5 wastewater alternatives. It
should be noted that the layouts are drawn with an objective to provide a conceptual
understanding of the alternatives and only include a high level plan of the development
indicating different zones. Table 3.1 shows the legend used in these figures.
Table 3.1 – Legend in the Figures 3.1 to 3.5
Symbol Description
Lot/property
Settling tank
Pump
Forcemain
Gravity sewer
Pumping station
3.3 Sludge and Biosolids
All municipal treatment systems produce sludge as a by-product of the sewage treated
process. Sludge is a slurry of biological active solids which have either been directly
removed from the sewage or produced during the biological treatment processes. Raw
sludge thus produced is biologically active and has to be stabilized prior to its disposal.
As such any treatment system in a sewage serving solution would have two parallel
processing streams called liquid and solids stream. While the liquid stream produces
treated effluent, the solids stream has sludge stabilization processes that yield stabilized
product called Biosolids, which are high in nutrients and can be safely and beneficially
reused via land application in agricultural fields. At the projected sewage flow of 1,000
m3/d for full development, approximately 6-8 m3/d of Biosolids will be produced that
would require disposal and/or reuse.
3.3.1 Alternative S1 – Pump from settling tanks to a common forcemain to central or

decentralized plant(s)
This alternative entails collection of the sewage from the lots in individual settling/septic
tanks on the properties with the objective of removal of settleable solids from raw
sewage, followed by pumping of the settled sewage through common forcemain/s to the
decentralized wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) or a centralized WWTP for
treatment and disposal. The settling tanks can either be in the form of the Biodigesters
currently installed at existing properties at the site or buried concrete settling tanks in the
configuration of typical septic tanks. The settled sludge in the tanks/Biodigesters will be
removed periodically and would be treated at the treatment plant/s prior to their disposal
or reuse. See Figure 3.1 for details.
Treated effluent
Centralized WWTP or Decentralized WWTPs
and biosolids
Zone A Zone B Zone C
Figure 3.1 – Servicing System Alternative S1

The key advantage of this system would be the limited excavation required for the
collection system, as the sewage would be flowing under pressure. This would lead to
ease of construction given the density of the planned development. However, this
alternative would have the following major disadvantages:
• Due to a dependence on individual pumping systems at each property there would

be high risk of failure and/or excessive operational maintenance requirements either
for the owner, municipality/development or both.
• Large networks of forcemains, with long retention times for sewage with a no/low
oxygen condition is well known to generate strong odours due to hydrogen sulfide
generation, which needs to be controlled at the discharge end of the forcemain.
While such odours can be controlled by odour removal systems, occasional odour
peaks can be difficult to handle and can be a nuisance. In addition, the odour control
systems cause additional capital and complex operational requirements to
wastewater servicing.
• The settled sludge or septage from the individual settling tanks/Biodigesters will have
to be removed at regular intervals which will be an additional operational requirement
for the home owners or the municipality. Septage being comprised of settled
organics from sewage contains large loads of partially digested and/or undigested
organic matter; therefore, requiring significant active stabilization to make it safe for
disposal. In addition, septage is known for its extreme odour potential which usually
requires elaborate and expensive septage collection and odour control facilities at
the WWTPs. In addition, treatment of septage adds a level of complexity to the
treatment process that not only makes the process significantly more expensive to
design and construct, but adds a whole new level of complexity to the operation.
• Hauling septage through densely populated residential areas is socially unattractive

because of environmental/public safety concerns, and the traffic caused by the
haulage.
Current and future septage hauling
The septage from the existing houses in the development is currently being hauled to a
sewage treatment facility in Montecristi. With the current number of houses at
approximately 10% of full development the current volume of septage should be in the
range of 250-350 L/d which roughly translates into a one truck load of 8-10m3 per month.
Upon full development these values will increase to 2.5 – 3.5m3 septage per day
translating to a 2-3 truck loads per week. Since the hauling will be done based on the
calls from individual home owners, it is likely that not all truck loads will haul the full 8-
10m3 capacity of the trucks which would increase the frequency of hauling. Assuming an
average of 6m3 hauled per trip, the frequency of trucking would be 4-6 trucks per week.
At the current hauling rate of $200 per trip, at 4-6 trips per week the annual expenditure
for septage hauling upon full development would be $40,000 – $60,000 per annum.
With 1600 houses, this will translate into $25-40 per household per annum.
While this disposal cost is reasonable and the current septage generation rate may be
within the rated capacity of the treatment facility currently treating septage, the future
acceptance of ten times the current volumes, and the current treatment rates may not be
guaranteed. This could either result in higher hauling/treatment/disposal cost or limiting
the amount of septage accepted at the facility. Not only that but as the volume of
septage generated increases progressively with development, the number of options for
disposal off site may be limited as there may be fewer or no facilities available to take
larger volumes.
As such, sustainability of this septage disposal option would require a long term
agreement between the development with the treatment agency, and/or a back-up
solution should the current facility becomes temporarily or permanently unavailable for
any unforeseen reasons.
3.3.2 Alternative S2 – Small bore gravity sewers leading from the settling tanks to
central or decentralized plant(s)
This alternative is similar to Alternative S1 except that settled sewage following the
settling tanks would be collected via small bore gravity sewers instead of pumping and
forcemains. See Figure 3.2 for details.
Key advantages of this system will be:
• Low excavation requirements, easy constructability and lower capital cost of the
collection system in comparison to Alternative S1 and a conventional gravity
collection system (with large sewers and without pre-settling).
• Low risk of failure and/or excessive operational maintenance requirements as the

system is not reliant on mechanical operation.
However, like Alternative S1, this alternative will have the disadvantage of hauling and
treating septage as described under Alternative S1.
Centralized WWTP or Decentralized WWTPs Treated effluent

and biosolids
3.3.3 Alternative S3 – Gravity collection from clusters to pumping stations to

forcemains to central or decentralized plant(s)
Unlike Alternatives S1 and S2, Alternative S3 would not have any settling tanks on the
individual properties, and would collect and convey raw sewage with a combination of a
gravity and pumping like a typical/conventional collection system. The raw sewage from
the houses will be collected via house connections to gravity trunk sewers. The sewer
system will follow the natural gradient within the zones and will convey the sewage to the
lowest elevation area within a zone. This low area would be provided with a pumping
station which would pump the collected sewage to the central/decentralized WWTP/s.
See Figure 3.3 for details.
Key advantages of this system would include:
• The alternative does not require settling tanks on the individual properties, which
reduces the additional capital and operational cost component related to this feature.
• The settled sludge or septage does not have to be hauled and treated separately.
• The alternative utilizes the natural gradient available at the site to minimize
excavation. This would help control the excavation requirements, and the associated
constructability issues and costs for typical gravity collection systems.
• Since the sewage is conveyed to the WWTP/s without settling, the treatment of
particulate and dissolved fractions of the sewage can be accomplished more
effectively and efficiently, unlike the options that entail hauling, treatment and
disposal of septage.
The disadvantage of this alternative would be the relatively deeper excavation

requirements which may cause constructability issues. However, since the development
is in the preliminary stages with more than 90% of the houses yet to be constructed,
such issues could be significantly mitigated if the collection system is installed at the
current stage of development.
Centralized WWTP or Decentralized WWTPs Treated effluent

and biosolids
3.3.4 Alternative S4 – Gravity collection from clusters to decentralized settling tanks

and small bore sewers to central or decentralized plant(s)
This alternative is similar to Alternative S3, with the exception of the sewage collected
and conveyed to the low elevation area in a zone is settled in a common settling tank for
the zone before it is pumped to the WWTP/s. Therefore, it would have the advantages
of the Alternative S3, but would carry the disadvantage of hauling and treating septage
as previously described in Alternatives S1 and S2, albeit from fewer sites strategically
selected. See Figure 3.4 for details.
Treated effluent
Centralized WWTP or Decentralized WWTPs and biosolids
3.3.5 Alternative S5 – Gravity collection from clusters to decentralized plants and

conveyance of effluent to place of disposal
Alternative S5 would entail collection of the raw sewage from clusters of houses via
house connections to gravity sewers. The sewer system will follow the natural gradient
within the zones and will convey the sewage to the lowest elevation area within a cluster
where it would be treated in a decentralized WWTP, and the treated effluent pumped to
the place of disposal. See Figure 3.5 for details.
Key advantages of this alternative would include:
• Easier constructability due to less excavation requirements owing to small collection

systems;
• Ability to utilize the natural slopes within the clusters and eliminate the need of raw
sewage pumping, which has its challenges as described previously; and
• Potential of installation of small cost effective package treatment plants which are
easy to construct/install and operate as opposed to large decentralized or centralized
facilities.
Treated effluent
WWTP and Disposal WWTP and Disposal WWTP and Disposal and biosolids
3.4 Evaluation of Servicing System Alternatives
3.4.1 Evaluation Criteria of Servicing System Alternatives
The alternative solutions were evaluated based on the following 4 criteria:
• Criterion # 1 – Environmental sustainability;
• Criterion # 2 – Economic sustainability;
• Criterion # 3 – Technical sustainability; and
• Criterion # 4 – Social sustainability
All 4 criteria were assigned equal weightage and were evaluated by using the following
colour coding.
Low Impact (most preferred)

Low to Moderate Impact
Moderate Impact
Moderate to High Impact
High Impact (least preferred)
Given below is a brief description of the 4 criteria.
Criterion # 1 – Environmental sustainability
This criterion evaluates the ability of the alternative to:
• preserve the local natural resources including fresh water bodies, ground water
aquifers, beaches, air, and local flora and fauna; and
• maximize recycle and re-use potential of the by-products of wastewater servicing

including treated effluent and stabilized biosolids
Criterion # 2 – Economic sustainability
This criterion considers relative life cycle costs of the alternatives based on the capital
and operational costs.
Criterion # 3 – Technical sustainability
This criterion considers the following aspects of the alternatives:
• Constructability – i.e. the level of potential difficulties or ease of construction
• Operational complexity – i.e. how complex or easy is it to operate the wastewater

system
• Operational risk – i.e. probability and intensity of operational risks
Criterion # 4 – Social sustainability
This criterion considers the public perception of the servicing alternatives and includes
the following considerations
• Nuisance potential related to noise, odour and truck traffic
• Operation or maintenance onus on the owners
3.4.2 Evaluation Description Alternatives
• Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 entails generating septage in septic/settling tanks within the

collection system. Septage is generated by accumulation of settleable fraction of the
sewage contaminants in the settling sections of the septic tanks. Since a majority of
the settled solids are organic in nature, the prolonged storage of these organics
under anaerobic (no oxygen) conditions leads to septic conditions in the contents
which lead to foul odours due to hydrogen sulfide production.
Some of the key challenges associated with collection, hauling and treatment of
septage include:
− Septage has to be periodically removed from the septic tanks. Since it is heavily
loaded with organics, is biologically active and carries strong odours, its removal
and hauling poses a significant health hazard, odour nuisance and environmental
risk.
− Hauling of septage is costly and would incur $40,000 – $60,000 per annum of
hauling costs at full development.
− Hauling leads to an increased carbon footprint due to fuel consumption and air
pollution.
− Since septage is 10-20 times more concentrated than raw sewage, the sewage
treatment facilities receiving large septage loads have to be provided with
complex design and operating features in order to receive and treat septage, as
without these, septage has the capacity to shock and disrupt the plant stability
leading to effluent non-compliance and even failure.
− Relying on an external treatment facility to treat and dispose of is risky especially

in the absence of any redundancy or a back-up plan.
As such, all 3 of these alternatives rank lower than Alternatives 3 and 5.
• Alternative 5 entails gravity collection from clusters to decentralized plants and

conveyance of effluent to place of disposal. These plants would have to be
constructed within the residential community, it would be desirable or even
necessary to install semi-active package treatment plants which can be buried in the
ground. With an average capacity range of 100 m3/d, approximately 10 such plants
would be required to treat the sewage flow of 1,000 m3/d from the fully developed
subdivision (1600 houses @ 2.5 persons per residence and per capita flow of 250
L/d). All such plants will either produce septage or secondary sludge or both which
would have to be periodically removed, hauled and treated prior to disposal. The
issues with haulage and treatment of septage have already been described above
for Alternatives 1, 2 and 4. Hauling secondary sludge will have similar issues as
septage and would require specialized treatment for stabilization prior to its disposal.
While alternately, the sludge could be pumped to a dedicated sludge treatment
facility on-site, it would incur additional capital cost due to the sludge conveyance
and treatment systems, along with causing hydrogen sulfide related odour issues in
the forcemains carrying undigested sludge.
In addition, while this alternative may be the easiest to construct and commission, it
would entail operating and maintaining multiple treatment systems and pumping
stations, which gives it low technical sustainability over the long run.
• Alternative 3 which entails gravity collection from clusters and pumping to central or
decentralized plants, does not produce septage, has moderate capital cost, simple
operation and low operational costs in comparison to Alternative 5.
3.4.3 Evaluation Matrix of Servicing System Alternatives
Table 3.2 gives the evaluation summary of the alternatives.

Table 3.2 – Evaluation Summary of Servicing Alternatives
Descriptive Evaluation and Score
Alternative S4 Alternative S5
Evaluation Criterion Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3
Gravity collection from clusters to Gravity collection from clusters to
Pump from settling tanks to a Small bore gravity sewers leading Gravity collection from clusters to
decentralized settling tanks and decentralized plants and
common forcemain to central or from the settling tanks to central or pumping stations to forcemains to
small bore sewers to central or conveyance of effluent to place of
decentralized plant(s) decentralized plant(s) central or decentralized plant(s)
decentralized plant(s) disposal
- Potential of lower quality treated - Potential of lower quality treated - High treatment efficiency and effluent - Potential of lower quality treated - High treatment efficiency and
effluent and biosolids due to effluent and biosolids due to quality achievable effluent and biosolids due to effluent quality achievable
septage septage - No air pollution associated with septage - Potential of air pollution due to
- High potential of air pollution due - High potential of air pollution due septage hauling - High potential of air pollution due to frequent trucking of sludge or
to frequent trucking of septage to frequent trucking of septage frequent trucking of septage septage from the decentralized
Environmental sustainability treatment facilities
- Potential environmental
concerns associated due to
challenges with treatment and
disposal of sludge or septage.
Ranking
- High capital cost for treatment - Lower capital cost for the - Moderate capital cost of collection - Lower capital cost for the collection - High cost due to construction
plant due to requirement of collection system due to gravity system due to deeper gravity sewers system due to gravity flow and and operation of multiple
septage treatment flow and small bore sewers - Low capital and operational costs for small bore sewers decentralized plants
- High operational cost due to - High capital and/or operational treatment plant due to no - High capital and/or operational - Additional operational cost
Economic sustainability frequent trucking of septage costs for treatment plant due to requirement of septage treatment costs for treatment plant due to associated with hauling of sludge
requirement of septage treatment - No operational cost associated with requirement of septage treatment or septage
- High operational cost due to septage hauling - High operational cost due to - Potential higher operational cost
frequent trucking of septage frequent trucking of septage if local treatment plants generate
septage
Ranking
- Unattractive to the home owners - Unattractive to the home owners - Minimum operational or maintenance - Minimum operational or - Minimum operational or
due to potential maintenance of due to potential maintenance of responsibility maintenance responsibility for maintenance responsibility for
septic tanks and equipment septic tanks - No noise and odour nuisance caused home owners home owners
- Noise and odour nuisance caused - Noise and odour nuisance caused by frequent septage hauling - Noise and odour nuisance caused - Potential social concerns with
by frequent septage hauling by frequent septage hauling - No public health and environment by frequent septage hauling hauling of sludge or septage
Social sustainability - High odour nuisance potential due - High odour nuisance potential due risks associated with septage - High odour nuisance potential due
to septage and generation of to septage collection and hauling to septage
hydrogen sulfide in a large - Environmental and public health - Environmental and public health
forcemain network risk of septage spills during risk of septage spills during
- Environmental and public health collection and hauling collection and hauling
risk of septage spills during
collection and hauling
Ranking
Alternative S4 Alternative S5
Evaluation Criterion Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3
Gravity collection from clusters to Gravity collection from clusters to
Pump from settling tanks to a Small bore gravity sewers leading Gravity collection from clusters to
decentralized settling tanks and decentralized plants and
common forcemain to central or from the settling tanks to central or pumping stations to forcemains to
small bore sewers to central or conveyance of effluent to place of
decentralized plant(s) decentralized plant(s) central or decentralized plant(s)
decentralized plant(s) disposal
- High probability and intensity of - Low risk of operation and - Low risk of operation and - Low risk of operation and - Higher operational requirements
operational/maintenance issues in maintenance issues due to a maintenance issues due to a gravity maintenance issues due to a due multiple decentralized
the collection system due to gravity collection system collection system with limited gravity collection system treatment facilities
heavy reliance on mechanical - High complexity in sewage pumping - High complexity in sewage
equipment for collection and treatment plant design, - Potential construction challenges treatment plant design, construction
conveyance of sewage construction and operation due to due to deeper excavation for sewers and operation due to septage
- Long term operation and septage - Easier and more efficient sewage
- High risk in reliance on an external
maintenance issues with septic - High risk in reliance on an external treatment due to no septage
facility for treatment and disposal of
Technical sustainability tanks, pumping equipment and facility for treatment and disposal
forcemains of septage septage
- High complexity in sewage
treatment plant design,
construction and operation due to
septage
- High risk in reliance on an
external facility for treatment and
disposal of septage
Ranking
OVERALL RANKING AND
RECOMMENDATION
NOT RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
3.4.4 Preferred Service System Alternative
Based on that evaluation description in Section 3.3.2, and the evaluation summary given
in Table 3.2, Alternative S3 – Gravity collection from clusters to pumping stations to
forcemains to central or decentralized plant(s), is the preferred wastewater servicing
alternative.
However, if a package treatment system provides a complete solution for both liquid, as
well as sludge stabilization and disposal, Alternative S5 could be given further
consideration.
Likewise, Alternative S4 has been primarily rejected due to unpredictability of long-term

sustainability of the current septage disposal practice. Should there be reliable long-term
solutions with redundancy available to address the septage treatment, Alternative 4 can
become a viable option.
3.5 Treatment System Alternatives
• Alternative A – Fully Active Treatment
• Alternative B – Partially Active Treatment
• Alternative C – Fully Passive Treatment
3.6 Description of Treatment System Alternatives
3.6.1 Alternative A – Fully Active Treatment
Fully Active Treatment systems are engineered systems with well established scientific
basis for design and operation. These typically entail multiple mechanical unit processes
requiring active operator input, supervision and control. Prime example of such systems
is a conventional activated sludge treatment comprising preliminary, primary and
secondary treatment each of which require active input for operation, control and
maintenance. Some of the less operator intensive active treatment systems include
trickling filters and rotating biological contactors. Apart from the liquid treatment
component, all these systems produce a solids slurry called sludge as a by-product of
the raw sewage treatment. The sludge produced is biologically active and has to be
stabilized in sludge digestion facilities prior to its disposal. As such sludge handling
contributes almost half of the operating cost in an active treatment system. See Figure
3.6 for a typical fully-active system comprising of a conventional activated sludge
process and anaerobic digestion of sludge.
Another type of treatment systems that falls in this category are pre-fabricated package
plants for small municipalities. The pre-designed and pre-fabricated systems are based
on established biological treatment principals, and usually delivered, installed and
commissioned on-site by the suppliers. These systems are typically automated and
require only occasional operator intervention for routine checks and maintenance;
however, are capable of producing high-quality effluents like any mechanical treatment
plant. These systems however are designed only for small developments with typical
capacity ranges of 10 to 200 m3/d. The other potential limitation of such systems is
production of untreated primary or secondary sludge which has to be hauled or pumped
to other sludge digestion/stabilization facilities prior to disposal. As such, the choice of
these systems has to be considered in terms of their ability to provide complete solutons.
The major advantage of fully-active systems is that these can produce high quality
effluent and stable biosolids within a small footprint. However, these benefits are
achieved by relatively high energy input and operational costs.
Figure 3.6 – Fully Active Conventional Activated Sludge Treatment Facility

Figure 3.7 – Fully Active Package Treatment Facility
3.6.2 Alternative B – Partially Active Treatment
Unlike fully-active systems, the basis of design and engineering of partially-active

treatment systems is only partly scientific, while a significant treatment component
comprises of an empirical basis of design with high-level, non-quantifiable scientific
principals. These systems are designed to run passively with low-operator input. Some
active treatment components may require occasional operator supervision for
maintenance; however, there are no complicated control strategies involved in running
these systems. A typical example of such a system is a flow through aerated lagoon,
which is a large aerated earthen pond with a residence time ranging from a few days to
several months. The raw sewage gets treated as it flows through the lagoon and the
biosolids produced in the biological process are captured in an unaerated section in the
same lagoon or a separate unaerated lagoon. Well designed, operated aerated lagoons
are known to produce effluents matching the quality of fully active mechanical plants.
The solids settled in the settling/polishing lagoons undergo passive digestion and
thickening and get stabilized over years of retention in the lagoons. The stabilized sludge
has to be occasionally removed (every 2 to 10 years) to restore the lagoon capacity and
maintain the effluent quality.
Figure 3.8 – Partially Active Lagoon-based Treatment Facility
3.6.1 Alternative C – Fully Passive Treatment
Such systems require the least operator input out of all treatment systems, and are
practically self-running with the minimal risk of failure. A prime example of this system is
facultative flow through lagoons with a large retention time of several months. These
lagoons are large earthen ponds which use natural biological processes to treat sewage.
The sewage flows through the lagoons at a slow rate with the contaminants getting
removed via settling, aerobic and anaerobic decomposition. Unlike aerated lagoons,
very little or no mechanical input is required in these systems. The oxygen required for
biological oxidation of organics is received naturally from air, and the symbiotic
interaction of the aquatic species in the lagoon ecosystem. Like aerated lagoon systems,
the sludge gradually gets deposited in the lagoons and has to be periodically removed
every 10-15 years to maintain the lagoon treatment capacity and effluent quality.
Well designed and maintained facultative lagoons are known to produce reasonably
good quality effluent. However, the effluent quality can be significantly inferior to that
from fully- or partially-active systems, due to the fact that these systems are totally
reliant on the natural phenomenon for treatment, making the treatment unpredictable
Another limitation is the potential for foul odours due to longer retention of sludge and
low-oxygen conditions in the bottom sections of these lagoons.
Figure 3.9 – Fully Passive Lagoon-based Treatment Facility
3.7 Evaluation of Treatment System Alternatives
3.7.1 Evaluation Criteria of Treatment System Alternatives
The treatment system alternatives were evaluated based on these 4 criteria:
• Criterion # 1 – Environmental sustainability;
• Criterion # 2 – Economic sustainability;
• Criterion # 3 – Technical sustainability; and
• Criterion # 4 – Social sustainability
All four (4) criteria were assigned equal weightage and were evaluated by using the
following colour coding.
Low Impact (most preferred)

Low to Moderate Impact
Moderate Impact
Moderate to High Impact
High Impact (least preferred)
Given below is a brief description of the four (4) criteria.

Criterion # 1 – Environmental sustainability
This criterion evaluates the ability of the alternative to:
• preserve the local natural resources including fresh water bodies, ground water
aquifers, beaches, air, and local flora and fauna; and
• maximize recycle and re-use potential of the by-products of wastewater servicing

including treated effluent and stabilized biosolids.
Criterion # 2 – Economic sustainability
This criterion considers relative life cycle costs of the alternatives based on the capital
and operational costs.
Criterion # 3 – Technical sustainability
This criterion considers the following aspects of the alternatives:
• Footprint and constructability – i.e. ease of construction and the footprint occupied by
the system.
• Operational complexity – i.e. the level of complexity and control and operator input
required to run the system.
• Ability to meet the compliance criteria for effluent disposal and reuse.
• Track record and reliability of the system/technology in terms of robustness,

operational issues and/or system failures.
Criterion # 4 – Social sustainability
This criterion considers the public perception of the servicing alternatives and includes
the following considerations
• Nuisance potential related to noise and odour
• Impact on esthetics of the environment
3.7.2 Evaluation Description of the Treatment Alternatives
• Alternative 1 with a fully-active treatment system like a conventional activated sludge

plant has a small footprint, would ensure a consistently good quality effluent,
stabilized biosolids and an ability to control and optimize the system as required.
However, these systems are sensitive to fluctuations in loads and flows and requires
a high-level of input, experience and expertise on the part of the operators to operate
and control such systems. The systems also require an active and energy intensive
aeration process. The process sensitivity, high level of operator supervision and
energy requirements make their operation complex and costlier than the partially
active and passive treatment systems.
However, the low complexity systems like tricking filters and rotating biological
contactor significantly mitigates the above limitations while providing the same level
of effluent quality although with a lower level of control on the process.
• The partially active systems like flow through aerated lagoons followed by the sludge
settling/polishing lagoons have lower capital costs and much simpler to operate in
comparison to the fully active systems. In addition, the operating cost of these
systems is significantly lower than the fully active systems on account of natural
sludge digestion (no mechanical energy input), low operator input and controls
requirement, and overall fewer mechanical components and associated maintenance
costs.
However, the key limitation of such a system would be its large foot print. In order to
treat the ultimate sewage flow of 1,000 m3/d at full development, an approximate
minimum lagoon area of 15,000 m2 would be required which would cover the entire
recreational park area available at the north east end of the development. In addition
to that potential foul odours due to passive sludge digestion, poor esthetics and
potential technical and social concerns with lagoon cleaning would make this
alternative technically and socially less viable than the fully active treatment
alternative.
• A fully passive system like the facultative lagoon would have the least capital and
operational costs as it does not have any mechanical unit processes.
However, this system will require the largest footprint of all the systems. Designed for
a conservative hydraulic retention time of 90 days, it would require an area of
45,000m2 requiring the purchase of additional property outside the current
development. In addition, with no control on the treatment the effluent quality would
be unpredictable as well, and likely poorer than the active and partially active
systems. Although it would meet the requirement of disposal to a fresh water
receiver. Further, passive treatment has high potential for foul odours due to passive
sludge digestion, which is further compounded by poor esthetics and potential
technical and social concerns with lagoon cleaning. All these factors would make this
alternative technically, and socially less viable than the active treatment alternatives.
3.7.3 Evaluation Matrix of Treatment System Alternatives
Based on the evaluation description and alternatives above, Table 3.3 gives the
evaluation summary of the treatment alternatives.
Table 3.3 – Evaluation Summary of the Treatment Alternatives
Evaluation Criterion
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Fully active system Partially active system Fully passive system
- Most protective of the environment due to best quality - Protective of the environment due to good quality effluent - Mostly protective of the environment with reasonably good quality
effluent and stable biosolids and potentially stable biosolids effluent and potentially stable biosolids, with some concerns for sub-
- Ability to produce effluent equality exceeding the disposal - Ability to produce effluent quality meeting or exceeding surface disposal
Environmental sustainability guidelines disposal guidelines - Potentially able to produce effluent quality meeting disposal
- High carbon footprint due to aeration energy input - Potentially lower carbon footprint due to passive stabilization guidelines for surface water discharge
of solids - Lower carbon footprint due to passive stabilization of sewage/solids
Ranking
- Moderate to high capital cost due to number of unit - Moderate capital cost due to lesser number and complexity - Low to moderate capital cost due no mechanical processes,
processes, and associated concrete tankage, equipment of unit processes, equipment and buildings equipment and buildings. However, this alternative would require
and buildings - Lower operational cost due passive stabilization of biosolids purchase of additional land adjacent to the development
Economic sustainability - Highest operational cost due active aeration of wastewater - Minimal operational related to occasional lagoon maintenance and
and energy required for sludge stabilization removal of biosolids
- Smallest footprint that would allow construction within the
available land on site
Ranking
- Minimal odour concerns due to high level of treatment and - Poor esthetics due to public perception of open sewage - Poor esthetics due to public perception of open sewage ponds
enclosed treatment process ponds - Odour concerns due to an open system and potential anaerobic
Social sustainability - Best esthetics as the facility can be fully enclosed due to - Potential odour concerns due to an open system and decomposition of sewage and solids
small footprint anaerobic decomposition of solids - Poor public perception due to the above and its environmental
- Good public perception due to the above reasons and its - Potentially poor public perception due to the above reasons sustainability
environmental sustainability and its environmental sustainability
Ranking
- Relatively complex design but with well established design - Low complexity design and with partially established design - Minimum design requirements and with only empirical
and operating principals and operating principals engineering/design principals
- Well established and robust systems capable of producing - Moderate control availability to optimize the process for the - Minimum control availability to optimize the process for the required
consistently good quality effluent under varying loads and required effluent quality and controlling operating costs effluent quality
flows - Simpler operation that requires lower operator expertise to - Simplest operation that requires minimal operation expertise
Technical sustainability - Maximum control availability to optimize the process for the run and optimize compared to the fully active systems - Potential technical and social concerns with lagoon cleaning and
required effluent quality and controlling operating costs. - Potential technical and social concerns with lagoon cleaning biosolids disposal operations
- Moderate to high complexity operation that requires and biosolids disposal operations - Minimum modularity for capacity staging as these are more
operator experience and expertise to run and optimize the - Low to moderate level of modularity for capacity staging economical to construct for ultimate capacity.
system.
- High level of modularity for capacity staging
Ranking
OVERALL RANKING AND
RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
3.7.4 Preferred Treatment System Alternative
As indicated in the evaluation matrix and the preceding discussion on the treatment
alternatives, Alternative 1 – Fully Active Treatment, is the preferred alternative. The
treatment technology for the fully-active system is recommended to be a less operation
intensive system like a trickling filter, rotating biological contactor, or a package
treatment system. In addition to the liquid treatment train provided by any of the above
systems, a sludge stabilization and dewatering facility would be a part of the overall
treatment system.
Given the fact that the full development of the community is going to be achieved over a
period of ten (10) years, the scalability or modularity would be an important governing
factor in the choice of a treatment technology, as some technologies may be more
conducive to modularity than the others.
A preliminary review of some of the local water related companies in Ecuador indicates
that suitable package treatment systems for such an application may be available
locally. However, a more detailed investigation would be required to confirm the
suitability and technical sustainability of such systems.
4.0 PREFERRED WASTEWATER SERVICING ALTERNATIVE
Based on the preferred wastewater servicing and treatment alternatives the overall
recommended sewage servicing solution would comprise of the following components:
• Gravity collection and pumping of sewage from clusters of

homes/commercial buildings to a central location for treatment;
• Active on-site treatment of sewage and sludge stabilization and dewatering;
• Reuse of the treated effluent for groundwater recharge, and irrigation of the
recreational areas, house lawns and other ornamental vegetation in the development
by the recharged ground water;
• As required, disposal of excess treated effluent to Rio Salado depending on the

groundwater and river flow conditions; and
• Reuse of the stabilized biosolids as fertilizer/top soil for the recreational areas, house
lawns and other ornamental vegetation in the development.
It is important to note that wastewater infrastructure must be designed such that it has
the capacity to service the design peak loadings and flows, and has the flexibility to
operate efficiently under average as well as peak conditions. Further, while the current
regulation would not allow direct use of the treated effluent for irrigation, it however could
be clarified/negotiated with the authorities at the detailed design stage.
It should also be noted that a hydrogeological investigation would have to be completed

prior to the design and construction of the wastewater servicing facilities. This study
would provide the information including the depth of the groundwater aquifer to be
charged, the ground water level and its fluctuations, and the direction of flow required for
the design, construction and operation of the groundwater recharge basin.
See Figure 4.1 for an overview of the recommended wastewater servicing alternative. As
indicated, the WWTP can be constructed in the area available north of Artica Avenue,
where the treated effluent can be pumped or gravity discharged to either the
groundwater recharge basin in the northwest corner and/or to the distributary/tributary
channel of Rio Salado as shown.
RIO SALADO
Tributary/Distributary
channel
Outfall
WWTP
Groundwater
recharge basin
Figure 4.1 – Recommended Wastewater Servicing Solution Schematic
5.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Going forward, the design concept of the preferred servicing alternative will have to be
developed in further detail, as an appropriate choice and design of various elements of
the preferred alternative will be vital to the successful implementation of the latter. We
understand a successful design concept will have the following key elements in it:
• The system is cost effective with regards to both capital and operational costs.
• The selected servicing solution, while providing effective treatment to achieve the
objectives described, has to be simple to operate with minimal complex operation
and maintenance requirements.
• There is minimal waste generation and maximum reuse of the by-products of the
wastewater treatment within the local ecosystem. For example, the treated effluent is
reused for groundwater recharge, thereby effectively recycled and beneficially
reused. Likewise, the sludge production is minimum and stabilized sludge can be
safely used as fertilizer locally, so that it does not have to be hauled to distant
locations for disposal.
• The odour generation and release potential is minimized. Being a residential

community, the odours need to be mitigated via prevention and control. To that
effect, both sewage and sludge need to be stable enough to prevent odours, and any
potential odour sources in the servicing solution would need to be suitably controlled.
It should be noted that an aerated lagoon based, partially active treatment system was
primarily rejected due to insufficient land availability, and its potential for odours. If,
however additional land is available and/or can be purchased at a cost effective price
adjacent to the development, a partially active treatment system with significantly less
capital and operational cost could be viable. In addition, if an adequate buffer is
maintained between the development and the lagoon system both odours and esthetics
can be adequately managed to prevent any social concerns.
We trust that this report meets the requirements of HEPD. RVA is available to assist
HEPD with the next stages of the project including the selection, design and installation
of the servicing solution. While RVA is available to complete this project as the prime
consultant, we would also be happy to assist HEPD as owner’s engineer to oversee the
project implementation on HEPD’s behalf, should HEPD prefer to go with a local
consulting firm as the prime consultant.
6.0 REFERENCES
1. World Wildlife Fund. Western South America: Along the Pacific coast of Ecuador.
Available: http://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0214
2. Comision Nacional del Agua (2013). Manual de sistemas de tratamiento de aguas

residuales utilizados en Japón, edicion 2013 (Manual of wastewater treatment
systems used in Japan, edition 13)
3. Hydro Suelos (2015, December 9): Informe del studio geotecnico urbanizacion
Mirador San Jose Puerto Cayo (Geotechnical Study Report Development, Mirador
San Jose Puerto Cayo)
4. Ontario Building Code 2012.
5. Ministry of Environment, Ministerial Agreement No. 028 (2013, February 13). Anexo
1 Del Libro VI del texto unificado de legislaciaon secundaria del ministerio del
ambiente: Norma de calidad ambiente y de descarga de efluentes al recurso agua
(Annexure 1 Text Book VI, Unified Secondary Legislation of the Ministry of
Environment; Environmental quality standards and effluent discharge standards to
water resources)
6. United states environmental protection agency (2002). Onsite Wastewater Treatment

Systems Manual (2002). Available:
nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=30004GXI.TXT
7. Department of Agronomy and Deppartment of Agricultural and Biological Engineering,

Purdue University. Home and Environment; Wastewater Biological Oxygen Demand
in Septic Systems. Available: https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/henv/henv-
14-w.pdf
8. National Groundwater Association, U.S.A (2014, July 16). Best Suggested Practices
for Aquifer Storage and Recovery. Available: www.ngwa.org/Advocacy-
Awareness/Documents/BSP26-ASR.pdf

Mirador San Jose Wastewater Servicing - Tech Memo

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Mirador San Jose Wastewater Servicing - Tech Memo

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Mirador San Jose

Mirador San Jose Wastewater

This Technical Memorandum is protected by copyright and was

Hola Ecuador Property Development Inc.

Attention: Mr. Gordon Poole

Dear Mr. Poole:

Re: Mirador San Jose Wastewater Servicing Study

We trust that this Report meets the HEPD’s requirements.

Yours very truly,

R.V. ANDERSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Harpreet Rai, PhD, P.Eng

• Gravity collection and pumping of sewage from clusters of homes/commercial buildings

• Active on-site treatment of sewage and sludge stabilization and dewatering;

• As required, disposal of excess treated effluent to Rio Salado depending on the

Further engineering and hydrogeological investigation is required to bring the conceptual

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .........................................................................................7

3.0 WASTEWATER SERVICING ALTERNATIVES .....................................................16

3.6.1 Alternative A – Fully Active Treatment .............................................................29

4.0 PREFERRED WASTEWATER SERVICING ALTERNATIVE................................. 38

5.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS ....................................................................................40

6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................41

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Hola Ecuador Property Development Inc. (HEPD) is in the process of developing a

1. Review background information provided for the project;

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Current Wastewater Servicing

As mentioned, the existing wastewater servicing strategy consists of removal of

2.2 Risks with the Current Servicing Strategy

2.2.1 Normal operation of septic system

2.2.2 Overloading of a drain field

Figure 2.1 – Septic Effluent Drain Fields

2.2.3 Analysis of the existing drainage system

In addition, the distribution pipes/absorption trenches are required to have a minimum

2.3 Environmental Conditions

2.3.1 Geographic region and climate

2.3.2 Local vegetation and key species

2.3.3 Natural features

2.3.4 Soil Conditions

Figure 2.2 – Soil Types at the Site

2.4 Opportunities and Constraints for Wastewater Servicing

2.4.1 Effluent disposal to surface water

2.4.2 Sub-surface disposal of effluent

2.4.3 Ground water table

2.4.4 Overall effluent disposal strategy

2.4.5 Available footprint for wastewater facilities

2.5 Regulatory Requirements for Sewage Treatment and Disposal

2. Treated water disposal into the estuarine river, Rio Salado.

Table 2.1 – Quality Criteria for Surface Water Disposal

Parameter Unit Quality objective

Fresh water Marine and

cBOD5 mg/L < 2 – Aquatic life not impacted

TSS mg/L Maximum increase of 10% of the

Total Ammonia-N mg/L Table 2.2 0.4

Nitrate-N mg/L 13 200

Temperature Total Ammonia Nitrogen concentration in fresh water source

15 6.98 2.22 0.715 0.239

20 4.82 1.54 0.499 0.171

25 3.37 1.08 0.354 0.125

30 2.39 0.77 0.256 0.094

As indicated the Marine- and Estuarine-quality objectives are less stringent in

Table 2.3 – Discharge Limits to a Fresh Water Body

Parameter Unit Permissible limit

cBOD5 mg/L 100