Utilities Kingston - Point Pleasant Water Treatment Plant ... · POINT PLEASANT WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT May 2009 Prepared by: In Association with:

POINT PLEASANT WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT

May 2009

Prepared by:

In Association with:

1101 Prince of Wales Drive, Suite 330

Ottawa, Ontario K2C 3W7

JLR 22575

Utilities Kingston Point Pleasant Water Treatment Plant Expansion Environmental Study Report

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 22575 CH2MHILL Canada Limited i May 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................................... 1

1.1 The Class Environmental Assessment Planning Process.......................... 2

1.2 Existing Plant ............................................................................................. 4

2.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT ..................................................................................... 7 3.0 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ............................................................................... 7 4.0 KEY ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS................................... 8

4.1 Source Water Quality and Drinking Water Treatment Objectives .............. 8

4.2 Existing Facility Condition Assessment.................................................... 10

4.3 Low-Life Pumping Station ........................................................................ 10

4.4 Treatment Process Options ..................................................................... 12

4.5 Treated Water Pumping and Storage ...................................................... 14

4.6 Planning Context ..................................................................................... 14

4.7 Archaeological Assessment..................................................................... 15

4.8 Ecological Assessment ............................................................................ 16

5.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS................................... 16 5.1 Overview.................................................................................................. 16

5.2 Preliminary Conceptual Layouts .............................................................. 17

5.3 Potential Effects on the Environment, Mitigation Measures, and Net Effects...................................................................................................... 18

5.4 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost............................................................. 26

5.5 Opinion of Probable Operating Cost ........................................................ 27

5.6 Implementation Schedule ........................................................................ 27

6.0 MONITORING .................................................................................................... 28 6.1 Pre-Construction...................................................................................... 28

6.2 During Construction ................................................................................. 28

6.3 After Construction .................................................................................... 28

7.0 PRE-CONSTRUCTION APPROVALS ............................................................... 29 8.0 CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES........................................................................... 29 9.0 OUTSTANDING ISSUES/CONCERNS AND POSSIBLE COURSE OF

ACTION – REQUEST FOR PART II ORDER................................................... 31


J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 22575 CH2MHILL Canada Limited ii May 2009

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Class EA Process ........................................................................................... 3 Table 2 Description of Existing Plant............................................................................ 6 Table 3 Recommended Treated Water Quality Objectives .......................................... 9 Table 4 Potential Effects Caused by Proposed Works............................................... 23 Table 5 Opinion of Probable Capital Costs ................................................................ 26 Table 6 Opinion of Probable Operating Costs Per Year @ 80 MLD .......................... 27

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Location of Point Pleasant Water Treatment Plant ..................................................... 1 Figure 2 Process Block Flow Diagram ...................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Site Layout Option 1..................................................................................................19 Figure 4 Site Layout Option 2..................................................................................................20 Figure 5 Site Layout Option 3..................................................................................................21 Figure 6 Site Layout Option 4..................................................................................................22

APPENDICES

Appendix A 2007 Master Plan for Water Supply for the City of Kingston Urban Area Appendix B-1 Certificate of Approval No. 9808-6C4N5V Appendix B-2 Permit to Take Water No. 72-P-0397 Appendix C-1 Source Water and Drinking Water Treatment Objectives Appendix C-2 Existing Facility Condition Assessment Appendix C-3 Low-Lift Pumping Station Appendix C-4 Treatment Process Options Appendix C-5 Treated Water Storage and Pumping Appendix C-6 Planning Context Review Appendix C-7 Archaeological Assessment Appendix C-8 Ecological Assessment

Point Pleasant Water Treatment Plant Expansion Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment

Utilities Kingston has nearly completed a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the

expansion of the Point Pleasant (formerly known as the Kingston West) Water Treatment Plant located on Sunny Acres Road in the City’s west end. The proposed expansion is to increase the plant capacity from

45.96 to 80 million litres per day, based on the recommendation from the 2007 Master Plan for Water Supply for the City of Kingston Urban Area. The purpose of this Class EA is to confirm the preferred alternative and

ensure that the proposed project can be implemented with minimal impact to the environment.

This project is being planned under Schedule C of the Municipal Class EA. Subject to comments received as a result of this Notice, and the receipt of necessary approvals, Utilities Kingston intends to proceed with the design and construction of this project. The capital budget for this project, excluding

land acquisition costs, is estimated at $60.5 million plus GST.

The Environmental Study Report, which contains a summary of pertinent information compiled during the Master Plan and the Class EA is available online at:

http://www.utilitieskingston.com/water/west/treatment-plant.html or in person at:

Utilities Kingston 1211 John Counter Boulevard

Kingston, ON K7L 4X7

Mon-Fri: 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

(613) 546-1181 ext 2250

Kingston Frontenac Public Library

Central Branch 130 Johnson Street

Kingston, ON K7L 1X8

Mon-Thurs: 09:00-21:00 Fri-Sat: 09:00-17:00

Sun: 13:00-17:00

(613) 549-8888

Clerk’s Office at City Hall City of Kingston

216 Ontario Street Kingston, ON K7L 2Z3

Mon-Fri: 08:30-16:30

(613) 546-0000 ext. 1407

Interested people should provide comment to Utilities Kingston on the proposal within 30 calendar days from the date of this Notice. Comment should be directed in writing to:

Jim Keech, P. Eng., President & CEO Utilities Kingston

1211 John Counter Boulevard Kingston, ON K7L 4X7

If concerns arise regarding this project, which cannot be resolved through discussion with Utilities Kingston, a person or party may request that the Minister of the Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order), which addresses individual

environmental assessments. Requests must be received by the Minister at the address below within 30 calendar days of this Notice. A copy of the request must also be sent to Utilities Kingston. If no request is received within 30 calendar days of this Notice, the Point Pleasant Water Treatment Plant Expansion will

proceed to design and construction as outlined in the Environmental Study Report.

Minister of the Environment 135 St. Clair Avenue 10th Floor Toronto, ON M4V 1P5

Dan Lalande, P.Eng., Project Manager J.L. Richards & Associates Limited 863 Princess Street, Suite 203 Kingston ON K7L 5N4 Phone: (613)-544-1424 Ext. 224 Fax: (613) 544-5679

Allen K. Lucas, P.Eng., Utilities EngineerUtilities Kingston

1211 John Counter BoulevardKingston, ON K7L 4X7

Phone: (613)-546-1181, Ext.2250Fax: (613) 542-1463

This Notice issued June 9, 2009

Notice of Completion of Environmental Study Report


J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 22575 CH2MHILL Canada Limited ES-1 May 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In June 2007, Utilities Kingston completed a Water Supply Master Plan for the City of Kingston’s

Urban Area. The Master Plan identified works to meet existing and future water demand

increases resulting from forecasted growth up to year 2026. One of the priority projects

identified as part of the preferred solution developed through the Master Plan is expansion of

the Point Pleasant (formerly Kingston West) Water Treatment Plant (WTP) from its rated

capacity of 45.96 MLD (mega litres per day) to 80 MLD.

Planning such an expansion to the existing Point Pleasant WTP is being carried out in

accordance with Schedule C of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process (Class

EA).

As part of the Schedule C Class EA, the following key issues were reviewed through separate

Technical Memoranda:

Source Water Quality and Drinking Water Treatment Objectives;

Existing Facility Condition Assessment;

Low-Lift Pumping Station;

Treatment Process Options; and

Treated Water Storage and Pumping.

An assessment of the Planning Context, a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, and an

Ecological Site Evaluation were also carried out.

The preferred alternative for increasing the plant’s rated capacity is an expansion of the existing

treatment process, namely direct filtration with chlorine disinfection.

Four preliminary conceptual layouts for the proposed plant expansion were developed.

Although any of these 4 concepts could be implemented, it is recommended that Options 1 or 2,

as illustrated on Figures 3 and 4, be considered during preliminary design subject to the City of

Kingston being successful in acquiring additional lands north of the existing plant. An

agreement in principle was recently reached in this regard with the adjacent land owner. Should

the City not be successful in acquiring additional lands north of the existing plant, it would be

possible to expand the plant to 80 MLD on the existing site, in accordance with Option 4

illustrated on Figure 6. Although technically feasible, Option 4 will significantly constrain and

limit future expansion beyond 80 MLD, as the site would essentially be “land-locked” due to an


J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 22575 CH2MHILL Canada Limited ES-2 May 2009

existing Designated Heritage Area to the southwest and a mature treed area to the east

deemed to be of ecological value.

Potential effects on the environment caused by the proposed works have been identified.

Various mitigation measures are recommended to reduce net effects to acceptable levels.

Potential effects, proposed mitigation measures, and net effects are summarized in Table 4.

The Capital Budget to upgrade and expand the existing plant to 80 MLD is estimated at $60.5 M

plus GST, expressed in 2009 dollars and excluding land acquisition costs. The City and Utilities

Kingston will pursue all potential funding and grant sources to offset the Capital Cost as much

as possible.


J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 22575 CH2MHILL Canada Limited 1 May 2009

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Utilities Kingston proposes to upgrade and increase the Point Pleasant (Kingston West) Water

Treatment Plant (WTP) from its current rated capacity of 45.96 MLD (mega litres per day) to

80 MLD. The Point Pleasant WTP, located at 80 Sunny Acres Road, supplies water to the

Kingston West water distribution system.

Figure 1 - Location of Point Pleasant Water Treatment Plant

In June 2007, Utilities Kingston completed a Water Supply Master Plan for the City of Kingston’s

Urban Area. The Master Plan identified works required to meet existing and future water

demand increases resulting from forecasted growth and development up to year 2026, as

identified in the 2004 City of Kingston Urban Growth Strategy. A copy of the Master Plan is

included in Appendix A for reference. The 2026 water demand of 80 MLD from the Point

Pleasant WTP was determined taking into account the following three components:

Residential demand;

Industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) demand; and



“Unaccounted for” water, which includes water used for fire fighting, flushing watermains,

watermain breaks, meter inaccuracies, and water losses as a result of watermain and

service connection leaks.

The Master Plan was prepared in accordance with Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class

Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process, June 2000, developed by the Municipal

Engineers of Ontario. Preparation of the Master Plan included public and agency consultation,

identification of a “Problem Statement”, consideration of alternative solutions using various

evaluation criteria, and selection of a “preferred solution” consistent with the Class EA Process.

A summary of the public and agency consultation activities carried out while preparing the

Master Plan is provided in Section 6 of Appendix A. One of the priority projects identified as

part of the preferred solution developed through the 2007 Water Supply Master Plan is

expansion of the Point Pleasant WTP.

In December 2007, Utilities Kingston retained J. L. Richards & Associates Limited, in

association with CH2MHILL Canada Limited, to complete a Schedule C Class Environmental

Assessment (Class EA) for this project. Considering the assessments completed through the

2007 Master Plan, the principal objectives of the current study is to address Phase 3

(Alternative Design Concepts for the Preferred Solution – Expanding the Point Pleasant WTP)

and Phase 4 (preparation of an Environmental Study Report) of the Class EA process. A

summary of the consultation activities carried out while completing the Schedule C Class EA for

this project is provided in Section 8.0 of this report.

While developing and evaluating possible alternative design concepts, current, and anticipated

future regulatory treated water quality requirements were to be considered, in addition to

expanding the plant’s rated capacity to 80 MLD.

1.1 The Class Environmental Assessment Planning Process

The Class Environmental Assessment planning process developed by the Municipal Engineers

Association (October 2000, as amended in 2007) is a decision-making process approved under

the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) for a group of undertakings. Projects

included in the Class EA may be implemented without further approval under the EA Act

provided that the approved Class EA planning process is followed. Briefly stated, the main

elements of the Class EA planning process are incorporated in the following five phases:



Table 1: Class EA Process

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5

Problem or Opportunity

Alternative Solutions

Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution

Environmental Study Report

Implementation

Consultation Requirements

Optional Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory

Optional

Addressed through the 2007 Master Plan (Appendix A)

Current Study Future

The Class EA process requires:

Consultation with the general public and agencies potentially affected by the proposed

project.

Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives.

A systematic evaluation of alternatives to determine their advantages and disadvantages

and their net environmental effects.

Documentation of the planning process followed to allow "traceability" of the decision-

making process and consultation activities.

Since projects can vary in terms of scope, complexity, and environmental impact, the Class EA

process identifies three levels of planning activities through separate schedules:

Schedule A/A+ - generally includes normal or emergency operational and maintenance

activities.

- the environmental effects of these activities are usually minimal and,

therefore, these projects are pre-approved and can proceed directly to

implementation.

- as part of the 2007 amendments to the Class EA process, Schedule

A+ was introduced, where Schedule A+ projects are pre-approved

and can proceed to implementation (similar to Schedule A projects).

However, the public affected by the project is to be advised prior to

implementation of a Schedule A+ undertaking.



Schedule B - generally includes improvements and minor expansions to existing

facilities.

- there is the potential for some adverse environmental impacts and

therefore the proponent is required to proceed through a screening

process including consultation with those who may be affected.

Schedule C - generally includes the construction of new facilities and major

expansions to existing facilities.

- these projects proceed through the full environmental assessment

planning process in the Class EA.

Upgrading and expanding the existing Point Pleasant WTP is considered a Schedule C

undertaking and, as a result, must satisfy the full Class EA planning process.

1.2 Existing Plant

The Point Pleasant WTP, originally constructed in 1971, was upgraded and expanded in 1988.

Various chlorination improvements were implemented in 2004 to address new disinfection

requirements established through the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, and to provide a

backwash residual management system.

It is a direct filtration plant. The plant draws its water from the North Channel of Lake Ontario

and is operated in accordance with Certificate of Approval No. 9808-6C4N5V and Permit to

Take Water No. 72-P-0397, both issued by the Ministry of the Environment, copies of which are

included in Appendix B-1 and B-2 respectively. It should be noted that the Permit to Take

Water, issued on March 1, 2002, states that the rate of taking shall not exceed 39,560 m3/d,

which is less than the plant’s rated capacity of 45,960 m3/d.

Following is a simplified process block diagram for the existing plant followed by a summary of

key characteristics.



Figure 2 - Process Block Flow Diagram



Table 2: Description of Existing Plant Intake: 521 m long, 1220 mm dia. intake pipe complete with an intake

crib located approximately 475 m offshore, having a capacity

greater than 130,000 m3/d.

Low Lift Pumping Station: Four pumps; two having a rated capacity of 13,308 m3/d each

and two having a rated capacity of 27,216 m3/d each providing

a firm capacity of 54,488 m3/d drawing from a wet well having

an effective storage volume of 405 m3.

Rapid Mixing: One 12.6 m3 mixing chamber feeding flocculation tanks 1 and 2

One 10.9 m3 rapid mixing chamber feeding flocculation tank 3

Flocculation: Three 172.4 m3 dual chamber flocculation tanks.

Filters: Three 53.2 m2 dual media filters having a capacity of 15,320

m3/d, each corresponding to a filtration rate of 12 m/h complete

with two backwash pumps (duty/standby) and a single blower

for scouring during a backwash.

Clearwells: 1,004 m3 usable volume below flocculation/filter tanks 1 and 2.

552 m3 usable volume below flocculation/filter tank 3.

Chlorine Contact Tanks: Two – 1,456 m3 tanks equipped with curtain baffling.

Potable Water Storage

Reservoirs:

Two – 3,545 m3 tanks providing a total “functional” volume of

approximately 2,600 m3. “Functional” volume is the maximum

volume that can be drawn from a reservoir while maintaining a

minimum operating level at all times.

High-Lift Pumping: Four electrically-driven pumps (one of which is equipped with a

dual electric/diesel drive) plus one diesel-driven pump providing

a firm capacity of 68,120 m3/d and a standby capacity (during a

power outage) of 40,876 m3/d.

Backwash Residual

Tanks:

Two tanks providing a total volume of 520 m3.

Stand-by Power: One 20 kW diesel generator to operate lights and chemical

feed systems; and one 93 kW portable diesel generator for

emergency backwashing and low-lift pumping.



2.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT

As previously noted, the Water Supply Master Plan completed in June 2007, identified the need

to upgrade and expand the rated capacity of the Point Pleasant WTP from 45.96 to 80 MLD.

Through discussion with Utilities Kingston, the following objectives were also identified to assist

in formulating a “Problem Statement” for implementation of this specific Master Plan

Recommendation:

Expansion is to meet current and anticipated future regulatory requirements and

guidelines;

Existing hydraulic pinch-points which result in operator challenges during periods of high

water demands are to be addressed;

The single discharge trunk watermain from the plant should be twinned to provide

redundancy; and

Flexibility should be provided to facilitate further expansion of this plant, above 80 MLD,

to accommodate growth beyond the year 2026 planning horizon, given that the Kingston

West and Kingston Central distribution systems will eventually be interconnected and the

fact that expansion of the Central WTP may be problematic due to existing constraints.

3.0 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

As part of the 2007 Master Plan, the following alternative solutions to provide the necessary

treatment capacity were considered and evaluated:

Alternative 1 - Maintain the Status Quo in terms of treatment plant facility locations (i.e.

Point Pleasant and Central Plants) and independent, stand-alone

distribution systems.

Alternative 2 - Interconnect the West and Central distribution systems and expand the

Point Pleasant WTP while maintaining the existing Central WTP in

operation.

Alternative 3 - Interconnect the West and Central distribution systems; retire the Central

WTP, and expand the Point Pleasant WTP to service both the West and

Central areas.



Alternative 4 - Interconnect the West and Central distribution systems; retire both the

Central and Point Pleasant WTP’s and implement a new “Greenfield”

plant to service both the West and Central areas.

The four alternatives were evaluated based on the following criteria:

System Operations;

Design Considerations;

Economics;

Natural Environment;

Historical Significance;

Public Health;

Social Impact; and

Maintenance Costs.

Alternative 2 was deemed as having the least potential impacts and, as a result, was identified

to be the preferred solution. As noted in Section 2 of the Environmental Study Report, enabling

Utilities Kingston to consider Alternative 3 in the future has been identified as an objective for

the current expansion project. This will require a layout and expansion concept which provides

significant flexibility to expand the treatment capacity at this site well above 80 MLD,

conceivably by as much as two and threefold (i.e. 160 to 240 MLD).

4.0 KEY ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS

A number of important issues are being reviewed and addressed through this project. Key

issues were reviewed through five separate Technical Memoranda, an assessment of the

Planning Context, a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, and an Ecological Site Evaluation,

prepared as the Class EA to facilitate the development and evaluation of alternative design

concepts, as summarized below.

4.1 Source Water Quality and Drinking Water Treatment Objectives

Technical Memorandum No. 1, included in Appendix C-1, summarizes historical raw water

quality and provides the current and anticipated future water quality requirements for this type of

source water. In summary:



The source water for this site, the Eastern portion of Lake Ontario, is of relatively good

quality due to low levels of turbidity, organics, and microbiological parameters;

Historical raw water data suggests that there is very little seasonal variation in the

source water quality, with only slightly deteriorated quality in the fall and early winter;

The following treated water quality objectives summarized in the table below should be

adopted as the basis for expanding the plant. These take into account current

regulations and design guidelines established by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment

(MOE) and also considers regulations developed by the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (US EPA), who is regarded as a leading water treatment regulator in

North America.

Table 3: Recommended Treated Water Quality Objectives

PARAMETER RECOMMENDED OBJECTIVE

Giardia and Cryptosporidium 99.9% removal or inactivation. Viruses 99.99% removal or inactivation. Effluent Turbidity Less than 0.1 NTU for 95% of the Individual Filter

Effluent measurements. Note: The Ministry of the Environment adopted this objective as a new Guideline in late 2008. The previous requirement was less than 0.3 NTU Combined Filter Effluent.

Organics Removal to be such that the concentrations of disinfection by-products meet applicable regulations.

Taste and Odour To be inoffensive. Lead 0.01 mg/L – measured at tap Copper 1.0 mg/L – measured at tap Aluminum Residuals 0.05 mg/L Total Trihalomethanes Less than 0.08 mg/L Total Haloacetic Less than 0.06 mg/L

Further discussions should take place with the MOE and the Cataraqui Region

Conservation Authority to review the status of establishing a source protection plan for

the existing plant, as required under Bill 43, the Clean Water Act. Under this Act, source

protection plans are to be developed on a watershed basis. The Point Pleasant WTP is

located within the Cataraqui Source Protection Region.

Utilities Kingston should consider taking a few raw and treated water samples to analyze

for the following parameters as this information would facilitate optimization of the plant

expansion design:



Geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol (MIB), which are typical taste and odour

compounds;

Assimilable organic carbon (AOC);

Cryptosporidium (raw water only).

4.2 Existing Facility Condition Assessment

Technical Memorandum No. 2, included in Appendix C-2, was prepared to assess the condition

of the existing plant, including an evaluation of architectural, structural, process, mechanical,

electrical, and instrumentation and control systems. Expanding the plant from 45.96 to 80 MLD

will require a significant capital investment. As a result, this project provides the opportunity to

upgrade existing systems which may be nearing the end of their useful life within the next 5

years or so. A number of upgrades and improvements were identified. In general, these can be

grouped in the following main categories:

Architectural/Structural improvements, including reroofing of existing buildings: $500,000

Electrical and Instrumentation: $4,100,000

Total: $4,600,000

It should be noted that the preliminary estimates noted above were developed in 2008 and

exclude costs associated with contractor mobilization/demobilization, mark-ups, engineering,

and contingency.

In addition, the need to, and cost associated with, improving the mechanical heating, ventilation,

and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems should be investigated further during the design. An

allowance of $500,000 to improve these systems is suggested.

4.3 Low-Lift Pumping Station

Technical Memorandum No. 3 (included in appendix C-3), reviews the existing low-lift pumping

stations and identifies the necessary improvements required to meet the future pumping

requirements for an 80 MLD plant. It should be noted that the raw water pumping capacity will

need to be increased to approximately 90 MLD to satisfy all backwash and in-plant water needs.

Systems reviewed as part of this Technical Memorandum include:



Raw water intake and pipe;

Screening;

Low-lift pumps; and

Raw water conveyance pipe to flocculation tanks.

The following conclusions and recommendations were identified:

The existing 1200 mm dia. intake pipe which has a wooden crib inlet equipped with a

coarse bar rack has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed plant expansion.

However, the additional headloss due to higher flows through the intake pipe will have to

be considered during design. Hydraulics and Net Positive Suction Head characteristics

of new pumping will need to consider additional headloss through the intake pipe, gates,

and screens. The system to control zebra mussels needs to be upgraded (diffuser

reinstated at intake and not routed through an existing sluice gate).

The capacity of existing screens and condition of underwater components need to be

assessed during design.

The Permit to Take Water will have to be revised to increase the water taking approval

capacity to at least 90 MLD.

Low lift pumping firm capacity needs to increase to approximately 90 MLD (from current

54.5 MLD). Pumping combinations are to be evaluated further with options potentially

including new and existing pumps. A preliminary evaluation suggests that adding one

new pump with a rated capacity of approximately 27.25 MLD while maintaining the 4

existing pumps would be adequate. Variable speed drive(s) or pump staging in

combination with a raw water rate control valve would improve control of flow to the

treatment process.

Raw water transmission piping to the treatment process and flow metering will need to

be twinned.

Existing floor drains in the Low-Lift Pumping Station need to be reviewed and modified is

necessary to ensure that they do not discharge back to Lake Ontario.

Based on the above, an allowance of $500,000 to upgrade the Low Lift Pumping Station should

be included in the Opinion of Probable Cost for this project.



4.4 Treatment Process Options

Technical Memorandum No. 4, included as Appendix C-4, provides an overview of possible

treatment process options and identifies a preferred option.

The existing direct filtration plant was originally designed to meet an effluent turbidity of 0.3 NTU

based on a Combined Filter Effluent (CFE). As noted in Section 4.1 and in Technical

Memorandum No. 1 (Appendix C-1), the MOE has recently adopted a new effluent turbidity

guideline of 0.1 NTU based on an Individual Filter Effluent (IFE). As a result, the existing plant

will not be able to consistently meet an effluent turbidity objective of 0.1 NTU IFE when near or

at its rated capacity of 45.96 MLD. Currently, the three existing dual-media filters are rated for a

loading rate of 12 m/hr. This loading rate is expected to be too high to achieve the 0.1 NTU IFE

objective. However, experience at similar direct filtration plants with Lake Ontario as source

water suggests that with a filter loading rate reduced to approximately 8.1 m/hr, it is anticipated

the 0.1 NTU IFE objective would be achieved consistently. Operating at a loading rate of 8.1

m/hr reduces the effective capacity of the existing plant to approximately 32 MLD. The

treatment process capacity expansion will therefore need to provide a net additional effective

treatment capacity of approximately 48 MLD.

It may be possible to increase the filter loading rate somewhat by optimizing the

coagulation/flocculation process (e.g. using a different coagulant or increasing dosage) and by

adding pH control capability. This should be reviewed further during design, regardless of the

preferred alternative design concept selected.

While there are many treatment technologies available, many of them are not considered to be

economically, spatially, or practically feasible for expansion of the Point Pleasant WTP. The

long list of treatment technologies was subjected to a screening and preliminary evaluation

process to establish a short-list of three alternatives. The following three alternative treatment

concepts are considered suitable for this application and were evaluated in Section 4.0 of

Technical Memorandum No. 4:

Option 1 - Direct filtration with Chlorine Disinfection

Option 2 - Direct Filtration with Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection

Option 3 - Membrane Filtration with Chlorine Disinfection



The advantages and disadvantages of each option were examined for 5 distinct areas, namely:

Capital and overall life-cycle costs;

Constructability and integration with existing plant;

Process flexibility to meet future needs;

Treated Water Quality; and

Operability and Maintenance

The Net Present Value of all 3 options based on a 20-year life-cycle cost analysis are

considered to be relatively similar, resulting in no clear advantage for any option related to

Capital and Operating Costs.

Expanding the existing plant using direct filtration and chlorination (Option 1), consistent with the

current treatment process, is considered to have a distinct advantage over Options 2 and 3.

While membrane filtration would have some footprint advantages, these are not considered to

be significant enough compared to the disadvantages of having the complexity associated with

two distinct and separate treatment trains operated in parallel. The implementation of UV

disinfection at this site is considered to have many special challenges as opposed to simply

increasing the chlorine dosage through the existing disinfection system. Construction and

integration of the same filtration and disinfection process as is currently in use at this site will

result in an easier and smoother transition to an increased plant capacity.

While direct filtration with either chlorine or UV disinfection will provide some flexibility in

meeting future treatment requirements, membrane filtration is considered to provide a higher

degree of flexibility. However, this flexibility is diminished as a result of having membrane

filtration operated in parallel with the existing direct filtration process.

With respect to treated water quality, none of the options is considered to have distinct

advantages over the other, as all three can be sized to consistently meet the proposed effluent

objectives, including the 0.1 NTU IFE design target for turbidity.

Ease of operation and maintenance is of key importance to plant staff. In this regard, Option 1

is considered to have significant advantages over Options 2 and 3 primarily as a result of plant

staff’s familiarity with the direct filtration and chlorination disinfection processes. Furthermore,

direct filtration and chlorination disinfection is considered to have lower operation and

maintenance requirements compared to membrane filtration and UV disinfection.



Based on the above, the preferred treatment process for the expanded plant is Option 1 - Direct

Filtration and Chlorination, an expansion of the existing treatment processes currently in use at

this site.

4.5 Treated Water Storage and Pumping

Technical Memorandum No. 5, included in Appendix C-5, reviews the existing High-Lift

Pumping Station and on-site storage requirements, and identifies upgrades required to these

components for a plant expansion to 80 MLD.

Key findings and recommendation identified through Technical Memorandum No. 5 are:

Two additional reservoirs similar in size to those currently in operation will likely be

required. This should be optimized during design through additional hydraulic modelling

analyses.

A new High-Lift Pumping Station should be constructed well north of the existing process

building, such that space is readily available for future treatment train(s) to further

increase the plant capacity by two or threefold beyond 80 MLD. Five new vertical

turbine pumps are recommended to provide a firm capacity of 80 MLD @ 90m head.

A minimum pumping capacity of 58 MLD during a power outage is recommended – this

translates to emergency back-up power requirements in the order of 1000 kW to

accommodate both raw and treated water pumping and to maintain the treatment

process. Back-up power requirements could be reduced by providing dual-drive pumps

(electric/diesel drive).

Additional modelling of the water distribution system is required, focusing primarily on

the area in the immediate vicinity of the plant where the operating pressure may exceed

690 kPa. If necessary, a small distribution sub-zone may need to be created using

pressure-reducing valves.

4.6 Planning Context

A review of the local planning context was completed to summarize any requirements or

limitations for the site and surrounding area impacted by planning requirements. A copy of the

memorandum prepared to summarize this review is included in Appendix C-6.

Briefly stated, expansion of the existing plant on the existing and adjacent property to the north,

if necessary, is permitted provided setback requirements, landscaped area, lot coverage,



building height restrictions, and parking requirements are respected. The applicable provisions

are:

Setback: 3.0 m when abutting on Industrial zone or 6.1 m when abutting any other

zones;

Landscaped Open Spaces: 10% minimum;

Lot Coverage: 35% maximum which can be increased to 70% maximum if site is

serviced by a municipal sanitary sewer;

Building Height: 12.2 m; setback requirements are greater if higher than 12.2m;

Parking: 2.5 parking spaces per 100 sq. m of gross floor area.

Satisfying these requirements will be addressed through the City’s Site Plan Approval process.

Deviation from these constraints, if necessary, will require additional approvals under the

Planning Act.

4.7 Archaeological Assessment

A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment was carried out in January 2008 for the Point Pleasant

WTP property and adjacent areas. Although construction of the existing plant has probably

eliminated any archaeological potential within the fenced area of the site and along its access

road, the lands surrounding the site are considered to have a high archaeological potential. A

copy of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment is included in Appendix C-7.

Patterson Park, immediately to the south and southwest of the existing plant, contains the circa

1840 historic stone Wartman House. This property is designated as having Historical and

Architectural Significance under a City of Kingston Heritage Designation By-law, and as a result,

is to be preserved.

A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (field testing) should be undertaken, of all areas

indicated on Figure 6 of the Stage 1 Report (Appendix C-7) in order to determine the presence

or absence of archaeological features. This should be undertaken by ploughing open-field

areas and by hand test pit survey where ploughing is not reasonably feasible. Should

archaeological features of significance be encountered, appropriate mitigating measures will be

developed.



4.8 Ecological Assessment

The Ecological Assessment, prepared in May 2008, is included in Appendix C-8.

In summary, there are three naturalized and mature forest stands adjacent to the existing WTP

site which all exhibit varying degrees of cumulative ecological disturbance due to past and

present land use. The presence of Butternut trees in the adjacent woodlots represents a

significant natural heritage feature that must be protected. Butternut trees are an endangered

species due to Butternut Canker, a major disease. The existing woodlots also provide limited

local habitat for migrant songbirds, and some degree of protection for adjacent shoreline fish

habitat. As a result, the three adjacent woodlots are considered to be of Moderate Ecological

Sensitivity. The site layout and location of new infrastructure for the plant expansion will be

developed to avoid potential impacts to existing health Butternut trees, and a no-net loss of tree

cover. A tree management strategy for the expanded site should be developed in accordance

with the City’s Tree Conservation By-law as part of the Site Plan approval process.

On the other hand, the open field and maintained lawn areas are considered to be of low

ecological sensitivity, as they provide very limited ecosystem habitat or buffering capacity.

Expansion of the WTP within these areas would be consistent with Natural Heritage Policy

guidelines.

5.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS

5.1 Overview

The following is a brief description of the proposed works:

Reuse the existing intake structure and pipe.

Upgrade the existing zebra mussel control system for the existing intake structure and

pipe.

Increase the capacity of the existing low-lift pumping to provide a firm capacity of at least

90 MLD to satisfy the anticipated 2026 water demand of 80 MLD and account for

backwash and in-plant water needs.

Undertake an assessment of the existing screens, in particular, the underwater

components. Replace this equipment if deemed necessary.

Twin the raw water conveyance pipe with a parallel 750 mm dia. pipe equipped with flow

metering.



Implement additional rapid-mixing tanks, flocculation tanks, direct dual-media filters

designed to operate at an approximate loading rate of 8.1 m/hr (approximately 300 m2 of

additional filter surface area is required).

Consider providing provisions for pH control to further optimize the treatment process

and filter hydraulic loading rate.

Upgrade the filter backwash process to provide redundancy by adding a blower for

scouring.

Twin the existing conveyance pipe from the expanded clearwell to the chlorine contact

tanks.

Increase the capacity of the existing backwash residual management system.

Modify the existing chlorine contact tanks to remove existing hydraulic pinch points.

Double the on-site treated water storage capacity by adding two in-ground concrete

tanks which can be operated either in series or in parallel.

Construct a new High-Lift Pumping Station with dual discharge pumping arrangements

to provide a firm capacity of 80 MLD @ 90 m of head discharge.

Expand the existing electrical sub-station, or construct a new one, complete with the

necessary grounding systems.

Implement new emergency back-up generator capacity to maintain plant operations

during power outages – preliminary estimates suggest that a minimum of 1000 kW will

be required unless some of the low-lift and high-lift pumps are equipped with a dual-drive

(electric/diesel).

Replace existing electrical, instrumentation, and control equipment as required.

Various upgrades and renovations to the existing facilities.

Various site improvements and landscaping works.

5.2 Preliminary Conceptual Layouts

Four preliminary conceptual layouts for the proposed plant expansion were developed, as

illustrated on Figures 3 to 6. Concepts No. 1 and 2 are essentially similar and involve a new

High Lift Pumping Station located on lands to be acquired north of the site with the new filtration

process expansion and additional reservoirs configured to easily facilitate further expansions by

two or three fold beyond 80 MLD. The only variable between these two options is the piping,

valving, and layout arrangement for the additional reservoirs.



Concept No. 3 would include decommissioning (or re-purposing a portion of) the existing

chlorine tank and reservoirs. However, preliminary estimates suggest a cost premium in the

order of $4 to 5 million over the three other options to replace this infrastructure through new

tankage north of the existing plant.

Concept No. 4 is centrally located within the existing site with additional reservoirs being

implemented along the eastern property boundary. Although technically feasible, this layout will

significantly constrain and limit future expansion beyond 80 MLD. This layout would essentially

be “land-locked” due to the designated Heritage area to the southwest and the mature treed

area to the east deemed to be of ecological value.

Although any of these 4 concepts could be implemented, it is recommended that Options 1 or 2

be considered further during preliminary design subject to the City of Kingston being successful

in acquiring additional lands north of the existing plant.

It should be noted that discussions are ongoing between Utilities Kingston and the adjacent land

owner to exchange ownership of the required additional land at fair market value. An

agreement in principle was recently reached in this regard. A formal land transfer agreement is

currently being developed.

The preferred layout will be determined during design and will consider Operator input related to

maintenance and operational flexibility.

5.3 Potential Effects on the Environment, Mitigation Measures, and Net Effects

A description of possible effects on the environment, caused by the proposed works as well as

proposed mitigation measures and anticipated net effects are summarized in Table 4:











Table 4: Potential Effects Caused by Proposed Works

POTENTIAL EFFECTS N

ot

Pro

bab

le

Pro

bab

le

E

ffec

t

Mitigation Measures

Net Effects

AGRICULTURAL removal of productive farm land disruption of field access from public roads disruption of tile and surface drainage effect of crops, trees, and vegetation effect on climate that specialty crops may

depend on effect of property loss (physical) effect on agricultural area

U U U U U U U

None required.

RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/ INSTITUTIONAL effects on safety effects of temporary disruption during

construction (e.g. dust, noise, vibration, detours, temporary loss of business, etc.)

effects of property loss (physical and

financial) effects of social stress re: loss of

home/business

U U

U U

+tive -tive

Increased capacity for fire fighting purposes. Dust control measures to be implemented during construction, equipment will have proper exhaust system to reduce noise emissions, blasting and rock removal activities will be carried out in a controlled manner to ensure that vibrations are within acceptable levels and do not adversely impact surrounding structures.

Minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level.

TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE effect of mortality/stress of vegetation by

construction equipment/sedimentation effect on wildlife habitat and breeding

activity changes in vegetation composition as a

result of environmental changes effect of removal or disturbance of

significant woody and herbaceous vegetation and/or rare and endangered flora and/or fauna

possible effects of roadway contaminants on vegetation

new or increased exposure of forest edge with resultant effects of windrow of trees

U U U U U

U

-tive

Vegetation to be maintained is to be protected during construction; measures include sediment and erosion controls. A Tree Management Plan will be prepared prior to construction in accordance with the City’s Tree Protection By-law.

None anticipated with mitigation proposed.




POTENTIAL EFFECTS N

ot

Pro

bab

le

Pro

bab

le

E

ffec

t

Mitigation Measures

Net Effects

HERITAGE RESOURCES disruption and/or destruction of sites,

structures, or cultural heritage landscapes having archaeological , historical, architectural or cultural/heritage significance

U

-tive

Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment to be carried out during Preliminary Design Phase.

Mitigated by implementing recommendations identified through the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment.

OUTDOOR RECREATION effects on environmental conditions in a

recreation area temporary disruption due to construction effects on operations effects on quality of user experience

U U U U

AESTHETICS effects on removal of vegetation/cultural

elements changing of compatibility with surroundings adjacent residents exposed to new view

U U U

COMMUNITY EFFECTS change in tax base (loss / gain of business) change to water rates to upgrade existing

plant change to impost rates to recover cost for

expanding plant capacity effects on quality of life

U

U U U

-tive -tive +tive

Impact can be reduced by securing additional financial assistance. None proposed. None required; Upgraded plant will improve effluent treated water quality and provide additional fire-fighting capacity.

Impact can be reduced but is not avoidable. Cost to expand plant will be funded through future development.

NOISE effects of changes in noise levels due to

operation of facility effects of construction

U

U

-tive

Construction equipment to have proper exhaust system to reduce noise impacts, construction activities to talk place during time periods stipulated in the local Noise By-law.

Potential impact mitigated to acceptable level.




POTENTIAL EFFECTS N

ot

Pro

bab

le

Pro

bab

le

E

ffec

t

Mitigation Measures

Net Effects

SURFACE DRAINAGE diversion and/or channelization of

watercourses effects on floodplain contamination of surface water sedimentation of surface water increased runoff from new impermeable

surfaces effects on downstream users effects on downstream development (i.e.

flooding potential)

U U U U

U U U

-tive -tive -tive

Erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented to mitigate potential impacts; refueling precautions to be taken to avoid spills Stormwater Management Plan to be developed during design and implemented during construction. Stormwater Management Plan to be developed during design and implemented during construction.

Potential impact mitigated to acceptable level. Potential impact mitigated to acceptable level. Potential impact mitigated to acceptable level.

GROUNDWATER quantity, quality, and interference with flows

and levels

U

SOILS GEOLOGY erosion during construction erosion after construction

U U

-tive -tive

Erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during construction to mitigate potential impacts. Stormwater Management Plan to be developed during design and implemented during construction.

Potential impact mitigated to acceptable level. Potential impact mitigated to acceptable level.

TOPOGRAPHY/LANDFORMS scarring of unique land forms

U

CLIMATIC EFFECTS effect of vegetation removal on snow

accumulations adjacent to facility change in air quality through addition or

removal of particulates, gases, odours

U U

FISH, AQUATIC WILDLIFE, AND VEGETATION effect of vegetation removal change in water quality/temperature effects of timing of construction activities on

spawning and breeding periods

U U U

TRAFFIC effect of traffic during construction effect of traffic after construction

U

U

-tive

Potential traffic impacts to be assessed during design. Construction access will be limited to Sunny Acres Road.

Potential impact is unavoidable.



5.4 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost

The overall capital budget envelope to upgrade and expand the existing Point Pleasant WTP,

excluding cost for property acquisition, is $64.6 Million, as summarized in Table 5. The City and

Utilities Kingston will pursue all potential funding and grant sources to offset the capital cost as

much as possible.

Table 5: Opinion of Probable Capital Costs

Item

Probable Capital Cost

General Works and Site Services $1,000,000

Upgrade Zebra Mussel Control 125,000

Low-lift Pumping Station Upgrades 500,000

Twin Raw Water Conveyance Pipe 100,000

Treatment Plant Expansion including Back Wash Management Process Expansion

22,000,000

Twin Treated Water Conveyance Pipe 75,000

Modify Chlorine Contact Tank 100,000

New On-site Storage and High-lift Pumping c/w New Piping 8,000,000

Electrical and Instrumentation 1,500,000

Emergency Back-up Power (outdoor installtion) 2,000,000

Upgrades to Existing Facility including New Sub-station 4,600,000

Allowance for HVAC Modifications to Existing Facility 500,000

Allowance for New Maintenance Shop $300,000

Sub-Total: $40,800,000

Permits (Allowance): 400,000

Contractor’s Fees (10% for Overhead and Profit): 4,080,000

Sub-Total: $45,280,000

Contingency (15%±): 6,800,000

Sub-Total (Construction): $52,080,000

Allowance for Engineering (15%±): 7,800,000

Allowance for System Integration (1%±): 600,000

Rounded Total (excluding GST): $60,480,000



5.5 Opinion of Probable Operating Cost

The operating cost for the existing plant is, on average, approximately $710,000 per year. Not

accounting for cost escalation, this is expected to increase by approximately 90%, as

summarized in Table 6, when the plant reaches its expanded rated capacity of 80 MLD,

primarily as a result of increased chemical and energy costs and an allowance for one additional

operator.

Table 6: Opinion of Probably Operating Costs per year @ 80 MLD

ITEM

2008

FUTURE

Salaries and Benefits $200,000 $265,000

WSIB 20,000 26,000

Office/Admin/Training/Licences 10,000 14,000

Chemicals – Alum/Polymer/Chlorination 150,000 325,000

Repair and Maintenance Supplies 25,000 50,000

Sample Testing 30,000 30,000

Utilities 250,000 600,000

Internal Equipment Changes 25,000 25,000

$710,000 $1,335,000

5.6 Implementation Schedule

Subject to Utilities Kingston securing the necessary pre-construction approvals and the

necessary funds, the proposed works will be implemented over the next several years, as

summarized below:

TENTATIVE (subject to funding being secured)

Preliminary Design & Preselection of Major Equipment Suppliers July 1 – Dec. 31/09

Detailed Design & Preparation of Contract Drawings & Specs Jan. 1 – Dec. 31/10

Tendering and Contract Award: Jan. 1 – Apr. 30/11

Construction: May 1/11–Oct. 31/12

Start-up of Operations: November 1, 2012



6.0 MONITORING

6.1 Pre-Construction

.1 Pre-Blast Survey

It is anticipated that rock will need to be removed through drilling and blasting and by

using mechanical techniques (i.e. hoe-ramming) to permit construction of the proposed

works. A pre-blast survey will be prepared for all residences, utilities, structures, and

facilities likely to be affected by the blast and those within 100 m of the location where

explosives are to be used.

6.2 During Construction

.1 Drilling and Blasting Activities

Monitoring for ground vibration, peak sound and pressure levels, and water

overpressure will be carried out to verify that drilling and blasting activities to facilitate

rock removal are completed in accordance with the construction specifications. This will

be necessary to prevent adverse potential effects due to blasting activities.

.2 Construction Activities

All construction activities are to be monitored to ensure adherence to the drawings and

specifications including implementation of various mitigation measures identified for the

proposed works.

6.3 After Construction

.1 Plant Operation and Performance

A Certificate of Approval issued under the Safe Drinking Water Act by the Ministry of the

Environment will be required prior to constructing the proposed water works. In addition,

a Certificate of Approval issued under the Environmental Protection Act will be required

for the proposed emergency back-up generation system.

These Certificates of Approval will include a number of requirements related to plant

operation, monitoring, performance, and reporting to ensure that the plant's performance

is in accordance with applicable requirements and the various pre-construction

approvals obtained. An annual report will be prepared to document the plant’s

performance and monitoring results for review by the Ministry of the Environment.



7.0 PRE-CONSTRUCTION APPROVALS

A number of approvals are required prior to implementing the proposed works. These include:

Obtaining a Certificate of Approval (Water) from the Ministry of the Environment

pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Obtaining a Certificate of Approval (Air) from the Ministry pursuant to the Ontario

Environmental Protection Act.

Site Plan Approval from the City pursuant to the Ontario Planning Act.

Building Permit from the City pursuant to the Ontario Building Code.

Screening of the project in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act, should any Federal approvals be required or should

funding be provided by the Federal Government for this project.

8.0 CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

In addition to various consultation activities, including two Public Information Centres

(November 21, 2006 and March 19, 2007, during preparation of the 2007 Water Supply Master

Plan, a number of consultation activities were carried out while completing the Schedule C

Class EA for this project to ensure that the public and agency stakeholders were kept well

informed and were given the opportunity to provide input throughout the decision-making

process. Consultation activities and a summary of comments received and actions taken to

address them are summarized below.

A Notice of Study Commencement was issued and published in The Kingston Whig-Standard

on January 18, 2008. The Notice provided an overview of the project and its objectives. It was

also noted that additional information could be obtained by visiting Utilities Kingston's website at

www.utilitieskingston.com or by contacting the following individuals:

Dan Lalande, P. Eng. Allen K. Lucas, P. Eng. Project Manager Utilities Engineer J. L. Richards & Associates Limited Utilities Kingston Tel: 613-544-1424 Tel: 613-546-1181, Ext. 2250



Environmental Scan

Between January 25 and February 15, 2008, seven (7) local residents and community

stakeholders were interviewed as part of the environmental scan for the Class EA Update.

These interviews were carried out in order to develop a list of community concerns, issues, and

expectations around the Point Pleasant WTP expansion and the public consultation process to

be undertaken. In order to obtain a balanced assessment, community leaders,

environmentalists, local residents, and business leaders were interviewed. Of the people

interviewed, 2 were interviewed in person and 5 were interviewed by phone.

There were two common themes identified throughout the environmental scan: the need to

communicate with the community prior to construction, and the need to mitigate potential

impacts during construction.

In general, the issues and concerns identified through the Environmental Scan have been

addressed while completing the Class EA Update.

Public Liaison Committee

A Public Liaison Committee (PLC) consisting of four individuals and representatives from

Utilities Kingston and J. L. Richards Team was created early during the study phase to primarily:

Provide input on consultation activities to ensure that community needs are met.

Provide input on information to be presented at each open house and to review the

consultation reports completed after each PLC Meeting and Open House.

Attend Public Open Houses to provide a strong link between the Consulting Team and

the Community.

Public Information Centres (PICs)

PIC No. 1 – January 30, 2008

The first Public Information Centre was held to provide an opportunity to:

Review and comment on the Class EA Update.

Review and comment on the recent performance of the plant and current flow

conditions.

Provide an opportunity for public input.



A notice for advertising PIC No. 1 was published in the Kingston Whig-Standard on January 18,

2008. An Information Handout, a Questionnaire/Comment Sheet, various display boards, as

well as copies of a Newsletter were available.

A total of 10 people signed the attendance sheet for PIC No. 1.

PIC No. 2 – May 20, 2009

The second Public Information Centre provided an opportunity to present the alternatives

considered, the proposed works, and a conceptual site plan layout. An overview of the

Archaeological and Ecological Investigations was also provided.

A Notice to advertise the 2nd PIC was published in the Kingston Whig-Standard on May 5, 12

and 19, 2009.

An Information Handout, a Questionnaire/Comment Sheet, various display boards, as well as

copies of the 2nd Newsletter were available.

A total of 9 people signed the attendance sheet.

9.0 OUTSTANDING ISSUES/CONCERNS AND POSSIBLE COURSE OF ACTION – REQUEST FOR PART II ORDER

If concerns regarding the proposed plant upgrades and expansion cannot be resolved through

discussions with Utilities Kingston, a person or party may request that the Minister of the

Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental

Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order), which addresses individual environmental

assessment. Request for consideration of a Part II Order must be received by the Ministry of

the Environment (MOE) during the 30-day public review period. The Minister determines

whether or not a Part II Order is necessary, with the Minister's decision being final.

It is important to note that the Minister will not consider requests made or received after the 30-

calendar day review period. It is recognized that resolution of concerns directly between Utilities

Kingston and the party/person raising the concern is always preferable to having the Minister

make a decision to issue a Part II Order. If serious concerns are raised late during the 30-day

review period, Utilities Kingston should attempt to resolve and address the issues, even if it

means that the 30-day review period for this particular party/person may be exceeded. This is



consistent with the pre-approved Class EA process. As part of the discussions in this case,

Utilities Kingston and the party/person should agree to attempt to achieve a satisfactory

resolution of the issues/concerns for a specified period of time. Should the issues remain

unresolved after the agreed period of time, a request for Part II Order by the particular

person/party can be made to the MOE within a further 7 days.

The MOE's Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch has 45 days to review the

information and prepare a report for the Minister's consideration. The 45-day period

commences after the 30-day public review period lapses. In the event that additional

information is required to assist the Minister in making a decision, the remainder of the 45-day

time limit no longer applies. In this case, within 21 calendar days of receiving the additional

information satisfactory to the MOE, a recommendation by the MOE's Environmental

Assessment and Approvals Branch shall be made to the Minister.

The Minister is required to issue its decision within 21 calendar days of receiving a

recommendation from the MOE's Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch.

In making a decision, the Minister has three options:

1. Deny the request. In some cases the request may be denied with conditions which must

be satisfied while implementing the project.

2. Refer the matter for Mediation.

3. Issue a Part II Order.

Anyone who has concerns about this project should provide written comments to:

J. A. Keech, P. Eng. President and CEO

Utilities Kingston 1211 John Counter Boulevard Kingston, Ontario K7L 4X7

If concerns cannot be resolved, a request for a Part II Order may be sent to:

Minister of the Environment 135 St. Clair Avenue West, 10th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5

Documents

Utilities Kingston - Point Pleasant Water Treatment Plant ... · POINT PLEASANT WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT May 2009 Prepared by: In Association with: