Island Water Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion - Project File Report

REPORT

City of Toronto

Island Water Filtration PlantProject File

July 2014

CONFIDENTIALITY AND © COPYRIGHT

This document is for the sole use of the addressee and Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd. The document contains proprietary and confidentialinformation that shall not be reproduced in any manner or disclosed to or discussed with any other parties without the express writtenpermission of Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd. Information in this document is to be considered the intellectual property of AssociatedEngineering (Ont.) Ltd. in accordance with Canadian copyright law.

This report was prepared by Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd. for the account of City of Toronto. The material in it reflects AssociatedEngineering (Ont.) Ltd.’s best judgement, in the light of the information available to it, at the time of preparation. Any use which a third partymakes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Associated Engineering(Ont.) Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on thisreport.

REPORT

i

Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE NO.

Table of Contents iList of Tables iiList of Figures iii1 Introduction 12 Study Objective 13 Existing Conditions 14 Alternative Solutions 25 Development and Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts 3

5.1 Do Nothing 3

5.2 Construct Additional Treatment Infrastructure 3

5.3 Maximize Production Capacity of Existing Treatment Infrastructure 3

6 Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives 77 Preferred Design Concept 98 Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigating Measures 99 Public, Agency, Stakeholders, and Aboriginal Consultation 9

9.1 Notice of Commencement 9

9.2 Notice of Completion 10

9.3 Project Website 10

9.4 Stakeholders and Review Agencies 10

9.5 Aboriginal Communities and Representatives 11

9.6 Consultation Process Comments and Responses 11

Appendix A – Process Flow DiagramAppendix B - Notice of CommencementAppendix C - Notice of CompletionAppendix D - Consultation Comments and Responses

City of Toronto

iic:\users\50200ee\desktop\project\20135598 cot island wtp process capacity assessment\rpt_cot_project_file_20140710.docx

List of Tables

PAGE NO.

Table 6-1 Evaluation Matrix 8Table 8-1 Mitigating Measures 9

List of Figures

iii

List of Figures

PAGE NO.

Figure 5-1 Island WFP, Existing Intakes, Capacity vs. Headloss 4

REPORT

1

1 IntroductionToronto Water provides potable water to the residents, businesses and visitors of the City of Toronto andparts of York Region by treating Lake Ontario water at four (4) Water Treatment Plants (WTPs):

R.C. Harris WTP, 950 MLD rated capacity; F.J. Horgan WTP, 800 MLD rated capacity; R.L. Clark WTP, 615 MLD rated capacity; Island WTP, 410 MLD rated capacity.

The original Island WTP was constructed in early 1900’s and employed slow sand filtration process. Thecurrent version of the plant was commissioned in 1977. The plant operates in a direct filtrationconfiguration and the treatment processes comprise flocculation of raw water with the aid of coagulant,filtration through multi-media granular gravity filters and disinfection with chlorine. Additionally, ammonia isintroduced at the end of the treatment process to maintain a more persistent chlorine residual into the City’swater distribution network.

In addition to providing potable water, the cold temperature from the Island WTP’s treated water is alsoused through a partnership with Enwave District Energy Limited in their Deep Lake Water Cooling (DLWC)system, which provides district air conditioning for numerous commercial buildings in the downtown core.

The Island WTP operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The plant is located on Toronto Island and, due to such a location, is accessible only be regular ferryservice or other marine transportation means.

2 Study ObjectiveThe City of Toronto has undertaken this project to evaluate options for expanding the rated capacity of theIsland WTP from 410 MLD to 450 MLD. Such an expansion would offer the City greater operationalflexibility in terms of the ability to supplement reduced production from other water treatment facilities due toservicing requirements with increased production from the Island WTP.

The expansion would also improve the ability of the City and the Island WTP to sustain peak productionflows.

3 Existing ConditionsThe existing water treatment processes are depicted in the Process Flow Diagram (Dwg, PFD002) inAppendix A and are as follows:

Raw water is withdrawn from Lake Ontario via three (3) intake pipes, 1,600 mm diameter,approximately 5.4 km long each;

Three (3) travelling water screens, approximately 1,800 mm wide each, remove debris from raw waterand allow screened raw water to enter the Raw Water Pump Well. The hydraulic capacity of each

City of Toronto

2c:\users\50200ee\desktop\project\20135598 cot island wtp process capacity assessment\rpt_cot_project_file_20140710.docx

screen is estimated to be 181.6 MLD (40 MIGD) for a total installed capacity of 544.8 MLD; Thescreens are cleaned periodically by water jets that deposit debris in the trash channel for disposal;

Raw water pumps lift raw water from the Pump Well and discharge to the flume that leads to the FilterBuilding. There are five (5) raw water pumps at the plant, four (4) fixed speed pumps (P1, P2, P4 andP5) are rated to deliver 114.0 MLD each while variable speed pump P3 is rated to deliver 120.0 MLD;Firm capacity of the Raw Water Pumping Station is 456.0 MLD while total installed capacity is 576.0MLD;

Coagulant (polyaluminum chloride) is injected into the raw water stream and rapid flocculation takesplace at the hydraulic jump of the flowmeter inside the flume;

A total of six(6) multi-media granular gravity filters, approximately 15.5 x 12.8 m in plan dimension each,remove pin floc and other impurities from raw water. Each filter is equipped with a 750 mm diameterVenturi flowmeter and a 600 mm diameter butterfly flow control valve; The filters are currentlyundergoing modernization with provision of air scour system which will be employed in combination withbackwash to provide better filter media cleaning;

Two (2) backwash water pumps, each rated to deliver 2,270 L/s flow, provide backwash water forcleaning the filters

Filtered water is discharged into two (2) clearwells located under the filters. Each clearwell isapproximately 39.2 m long by 15.4 m wide with a water depth of approximately 2.8 m for a total volumeof approximately 3,381 m3;

Clearwells are connected by a 2,250 mm diameter conduit which discharges filtered water to the WaterStorage Reservoir;

The 2-cell Reservoir has a total volume of approximately 34,000 m3 and is equipped with serpentineseparation walls to ensure plug flow;

Disinfectant (gaseous chlorine) is introduced upstream of the clearwells. There are also two (2) otherlocations for injecting chlorine – upstream of the travelling screens and at the entrance to theReservoir’s outlet channel – which are used on ‘as required’ basis;

De-chlorination agent (sulphur dioxide solution) is applied at the entrance to the Reservoir’s outletchannel in order to control the maximum free chlorine concentration of the water;

Aqueous ammonia is applied to water in the reservoir outlet channel to form chloramines; Hydrofluorosolicic acid is fed to the clearwells to enhance fluoride content for dental health reasons.

4 Alternative SolutionsThe list of alternative solutions available is as follows:

1. Do nothing;

2. Design and construct additional treatment infrastructure at the Island WTP;

3. Maximize the production capacity and treatment performance of the existing infrastructure at the IslandWTP.

ReportIsland Water Filtration Plant

3

5 Development and Evaluation of Alternative DesignConceptsThe following section review and evaluate the plant capacity expansion alternatives identified in Section 3.

5.1 DO NOTHING

As implied, the “do nothing” alternative does not provide the solution to the problem statement since it doesnot offer the required plant capacity increase.

5.2 CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL TREATMENT INFRASTRUCTURE

It is theoretically possible to construct a plant expansion as required to increase the capacity. Such anexpansion would consist of all the treatment processes already employed at the plant in a parallel streamconfiguration. The negative aspects of expanding the treatment infrastructure at the Island WTP are asfollows:

Toronto Island is a major year-round recreational facility for the general public; Constructing an expansion of the plant could require acquisition of additional lands which would reduce

significantly the lands available for public use; Major construction activity will impact the permanent residents of the Island; Construction activity in general on the Island are prone to be costlier than the same at off-island

locations and are subject to delays due to limited accessibility of the Island – all the supplies, equipmentand materials would have to be transported by public ferries, which require precise scheduling ordedicated marine transportation;

5.3 MAXIMIZE PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF EXISTING TREATMENT INFRASTRUCTURE

The ideal solution to the problem statement would be the optimization of the process and maximizing theperformance of various systems, equipment and processes at the existing Island WTP so that additionalcapacity would be available without the need to construct additional facilities. In order to ensure theproduction of the existing plant can be increased to the desired level, a theoretical review of each treatmentprocess was undertaken and the results were verified through a short-term stress test of the facility. Thestress test was conducted on June 11, 2013, when the plant production was ramped up gradually with analmost 478.0 MLD maximum production (filtration) rate recorded. The results of theoretical evaluation ofthe individual processes as well as the results of the stress test undertaken are summarized in the followingsections.

In the following discussions, it was assumed that for the net plant production capacity of 450 MLD therequired capacity of raw water systems up to and including gravity filters would be 450 MLD x 1.03 = 463.5MLD, i.e. it assumes 3% water usage for filter backwashing and other in-plant uses.

5.3.1 Intakes

The original raw water intakes have been replaced with new intakes as part of the Deep Lake WaterCooling project. The new intakes extend further out (5.4 km) from the shoreline and terminate much deeper(83m). The current intake system comprises three (3) intake pipes with a nominal diameter of 1,600 mm

City of Toronto


(63”). Once on shore, the intake pipe pass the existing valve chamber and then discharge into the existing2,250 mm diameter pipe installed during original plant construction.

Based on conversations with the original intake designer, the total hydraulic capacity of the intake system isslightly higher than 414.0 MLD (91.0 MIGD). Following original installation, the intake was hydraulicallytested and exhibited combined C-factor, a coefficient related to friction headlosses within the pipe,exceeding 150.

The calculations of the theoretical capacity of the intake system in terms of flow vs. headloss are presentedgraphically on Figure 5-1. Assuming a more conservative value of C = 140 representing the currentcondition of the intakes, the overall headloss is approximately 3.3 m at the design capacity of 414.0 MLD,3.4 m at the current plant rating of 410.0 MLD and 4.0 m at the proposed plant rating of 450.0 MLD.

According to the Government of Canada’s Hydrographic Services, for the period from 1966 to 2012 themean monthly water levels in Lake Ontario fluctuated between approximately 74.3 m and 75.6 m. Themean 10-years December lake water level is 74.54 m while the mean 10-years June lake water level is75.04 m. There were larger water level fluctuations prior to year 1965 (down to approximately 73.8 m), butthe lake water levels are better controlled now. Hence, we have used a mean Lake Ontario water levelelevation of 74.54 m for further calculations.

The minimum submergence requirement of the raw water pumps according to the supplier’s information is2.496 m including a margin for safety. With the pump well bottom slab of the Raw Water Pumping Stationset at elevation of 67.97 m the minimum allowable water level elevation in the pump well is 67.97 + 2.496 =70.466 m. On the other hand, the minimum water level expected in the pump well assuming intakeheadloss of 4.0 m and maximum headloss through the travelling water screens of 0.10 m, is 74.54 – 4.0 -0.010 = 74.44 m. Hence, for all the practical purposes the minimum water level expected in the pump wellof the Raw Water Pumping Station at the expanded flow of 463.5 MLD, which corresponds to the net plantcapacity of 450.0 MLD, matches the allowable minimum water level based on the characteristics of theexisting pumps.

Figure 5-1Island WFP, Existing Intakes, Capacity vs. Headloss


5

5.3.2 Travelling Screens

The total installed capacity of the three (3) existing travelling screens is approximately 544.8 MLD, whichexceeds the required raw water flow rate. However, the firm capacity is only 363.2 MLD and this meansthat the plant will not be able to operate at the desired high output when any one of the travelling screens isout of service.

The amount of debris collected by the travelling screens currently is very minor and although increasedthroughput will result in increased debris collection, the amount expected is insignificant and is not expectedto affect overall performance of the screens.

5.3.3 Raw Water Pumping

The rated capacities of the five (5) existing raw water pumps are as follows:

P1 – 114 MLD; P2 – 114 MLD; P3 – 120 MLD; P4 – 114 MLD; P5 – 114 MLD.

The recently installed pump P3 is equipped with variable speed controller while the rest of the pumps arefixed speed.

Hence, the total capacity of the existing raw water pumps is 576 MLD and the firm capacity is 456 MLDwhich is just under the anticipated maximum raw water flow but exceeds the net plant capacity.

5.3.4 Filters

The existing six (6) multi-media gravity filters have an approximate active filtration area of 151.9 m2 each.With all the filters in service, the actual filtration rate would be 18.75 m/hr at a 410 ML/d rating and 20.57m/hr at a 450 ML/d rating or 19.31 m/hr and 21.19 m/hr at the corresponding gross production rates of422.3 MLD and 463.5 MLD respectively. All of these filtration rates are within the ranges acceptable fordirect filtration by multi-media gravity filters.

During the plant stress test, the quality of filtered water, as measured by turbidity, was not affected much bythe increase of the filtration rate. The filtrate turbidity, which represents filtrate quality, did not fluctuatemuch at various filtration rates – from a minimum of 0.04 NTU to a maximum of 0.11 NTU with an averagevalue of 0.05 NTU. Note that the maximum turbidity value was not observed during the highest plant flowand, as such, could be attributed to a minor process upset not linked to increased filtration rate. Theobserved values during the plant stress test were below the critical control limit for individual filter turbidityof 0.3 NTU.

However, as was anticipated, the filter headlosses increased with increased filtration rates – from anaverage of 0.72 m at 300 MLD plant flow to an average of 1.22 m at 450 MLD. It is difficult to predict howthe increase in flow rate would affect the filter run-time between backwashes without proper field testing.However, we believe that since the average filter headloss increased from 0.84 m at 348 ML/d flow rate to1.22 m at 450 ML/d flow rate (a 45% increase), the filter run-time between backwashes could be reduced

City of Toronto


by a factor of 2 (i.e. if the current run-time is 120 hours the modified run-time would be only 60 hours). Morefrequent backwashes or a re-optimized backwash strategy would be required to manage this increase infilter headloss and potential imminent turbidity breakthrough when operating at the higher production rate.

In general, it can be concluded that the performance of the water treatment train was satisfactory during thestress test with average filter flows up to 451 ML/d and instantaneous peak flows of up to 478 ML/d. Basedon the review of filtrate turbidity and filter headloss values, it appears that the increased filtration rate wouldnot affect adversely performance of the existing filters. However, more frequent backwashes may berequired.

5.3.5 Clearwells

The performance of the existing clearwells is not expected to be affected by the increased plant productionrate as they are used mostly for transferring filtered water to the reservoir and as a source water for filterbackwash pumps.

5.3.6 Reservoir

During recent plant tests, the City staff recalculated the total volume of the Reservoir and conducted tracerstudies to determine the actual baffle factor. Based on these tests, the actual volume of the Reservoir wasdetermined to be 36,679 m3 with water depth of 4.1 m. The tracer test indicated that the actual baffle factorof the reservoir is approximately 0.96, but recommendations were made to assume the baffling factor to be0.90 to ensure factor of safety.

Currently, the City is required to achieve a minimum of 1.0-log inactivation of Giardia through disinfection.Based on the MOE parameters, in order to achieve 1.0-log Giardia inactivation, the reservoir is required toproduce a CT value of approximately 104 mg/L-min (0.5ºC water temperature, pH=8.0).

The City’s target currently is to maintain a minimum of 1.4 mg/L free chlorine residual at the exit from thereservoir. At the plant’s current rated capacity of 410 MLD or 284.7 m3/min, chlorine contact time and CTvalue are estimated to be

T = 36,679 / 284.7 / 0.90 = 143.1 min

CT = 143.1 x 1.4 = 200.4 mg/L-min

The current actual CT value exceeds the required CT value.

At the plant’s expanded rated capacity of 450 MLD or 312.5 m3/min, chlorine contact time and CT value willbe

T = 36,679 / 312.5 / 0.90 = 130.4 min

CT = 130.4 x 1.4 = 182.6 mg/L-min

Hence, when the plant production is increased to 450 MLD, the required CT value will also be met andexceeded.

As part of a future potential optimization initiative, the City is considering targeting a minimum of 1.1 mg/Lfree chlorine residual at the exit from the reservoir. At the plant’s current rated capacity of 410 MLD or284.7 m3/min, chlorine contact time and CT value are estimated to be


7

T = 36,679 / 284.7 / 0.90 = 143.1 min

CT = 143.1 x 1.1 = 157.5 mg/L-min

The future potential optimized CT value at the current rate capacity exceeds the required CT value.

At the plant’s expanded rated capacity of 450 MLD or 312.5 m3/min, chlorine contact time and CT value willbe

T = 36,679 / 312.5 / 0.90 = 130.4 min

CT = 130.4 x 1.1 = 143.5 mg/L-min

Hence, when the plant production is increased to 450 MLD. the required CT value will also be met andexceeded at the future potential optimized minimum 1.1 mg/L free chlorine residual.

5.3.7 Treated Water Conduit to John Street Pumping Station

The performance of the potable water conduit from the reservoir to the John Street Pumping Station isdifficult to predict since it’s actual condition is not known. However, during plant stress test, the flow in theconduit was increased for a short period of time up to a maximum of 430.77 MLD with no noticeable issues.

5.3.8 Conclusions

Based on the evaluation of the existing individual water treatment processes at the Island WTP it appearsthat water production at the plant can safely be maximized to the desired production goal of 450 MLD (net).

6 Preliminary Evaluation of AlternativesTable 6-1 below provides evaluation matrix for the alternatives identified. Numerous key indicators, like“Property Availability”, “Aesthetic Impact”, “Constructability” as well as impact on operations andmaintenance were used for evaluation of proposed alternatives.

Based on the evaluation presented, the preferred solution is Alternative 3 which involves maximization ofthe existing processes and equipment without any additional construction activity.

City of Toronto


Table 6-1Evaluation Matrix

Alternative Ranking Least Impact/Most Preferred Neutral Most Impact/Least Preferred

Description

Addressing Problem StatementExpand rated capacity of theIsland WFP from 410.0 MLD to450.0 MLD

Does not address ProblemStatement

Provides required increase inplant capacity

Provides required increase inplant capacity

Site Requirements, Constructability and Cost

Potential Expansion PropertyAvailability

Property purchase notrequired.

Surrounding area is used asrecreational facility for generalpublic

Property purchase not required.

Aesthetic ImpactNo change to currentaesthetics of site.

Minor - new facilities can beconstructed to match the styleof the current facilities

No change to current aestheticsof site.

ConstructabilityNo infrastructure to beconstructed for thisalternative.

Difficult - construction activitieson the Island are prone to bemore difficult and are subject tocontinuous delays due tolimited accessibility of theIsland

No infrastructure to beconstructed for this alternative.

Construction CostNo construction costincurred.

High - Excessive costsattributable to limitedaccessibility of the Island

No construction cost incurred.

Operation and Maintenance Impacts

Facility/System Operation No change in operation

Poor - Operation of expandedplant may require the use ofadditional operations stuff dueto wider spread of treatmentfacilities on the site

Good - No change in operationrequirements is expected

Maintenance No change in maintenance.

Poor - Additional facilitiestypically mean increased levelof maintenance due toincreased number of equipmentand facilities

Good - Minor increase inmaintenance requirements isexpected due to equipment andprocesses operating at higherrates

Overall Score

Alternative 2 - ProvideAdditional Treatment

Infrastructure

Alternative 3 - MaximizeProduction Capacity of

Existing TreatmentInfrastructure

Design and Construct additionaltreatment facilities and/or processesto achieve the desired expansion inplant's rated capacity

Maximize the production capacity andtreatment performance of the existingtreatment infrastructure at the Plant

Alternative 1 - Do Nothing

Leave the existing facilities 'as is'


9

7 Preferred Design ConceptThe preferred solution does require any additional features or facilities. The plant production can beexpanded using all the existing equipment and treatment processes by maximization of equipment usageand optimization of the existing processes.

8 Potential Environmental Effects and MitigatingMeasuresThe potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the preferred solution are listed inthe following table along with the suitable mitigating measures.

Table 8-1Mitigating Measures

Environmental Indicator Recommended MitigationProximity to sensitive land uses

The Island is used for recreational activities by the general

public.

No special mitigating measures are requiredsince most of the work will be done within theexisting Plant.

Vehicle/Pedestrian Traffic AccessIncrease in plant treatment capacity will increase the

frequency of treatment chemical deliveries

Since the plant’s capacity expansion is minor,less than 10% of current capacity, the impact ofsuch an increase is expected to be minor.Better scheduling of chemical deliveries with theferry traffic will be undertaken.

Local emergency services will be consulted asappropriate.

9 Public, Agency, Stakeholders, and AboriginalConsultation9.1 NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT

A Notice of Commencement and Invitation to Comment for this study was published in The Grid on June 19and 26, 2014 and distributed to all residents of Toronto Islands. Responses were requested to be submittedby July 4, 2014.

As well, a copy of the Notice of Commencement with cover letter was sent to the stakeholders and reviewagencies listed in Section 9.4 as well as the aboriginal communities and representatives listed in Section9.5.

An example of the Notice of Commencement is included in Appendix B.

City of Toronto


9.2 NOTICE OF COMPLETION

A Notice of Completion was published in NOW Magazine on July 10 and 17, 2014 and distributed to allresidents of Toronto Islands. As well, a copy of the Notice of Completion with cover letter was sent to thestakeholders and review agencies listed in Section 9.4 as well as the aboriginal communities andrepresentatives listed in Section 9.5.

An example of the Notice of Completion is included in Appendix C.

9.3 PROJECT WEBSITE

Background information was available for review on a project website (www.toronto.ca/islandtp) as notedon the various communication through the consultation process.

9.4 STAKEHOLDERS AND REVIEW AGENCIES

The following review agencies have been contacted for their input on this study:

Local Organizations Alexandra Yacht Club Algonquin Island Association Artscape Gibraltar Point Friends of Toronto Islands Island Yacht Club Queen City Yacht Club Rectory Café Royal Canadian Yacht Club Sunfish Cut Boat Club The National Yacht Club Toronto Island Canoe Club Toronto Island Marina Toronto Island Residential Community Trust Toronto Island Sailing Club Toronto Islands Community Association Ward’s Island Recreation Association

Agencies Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport Conservation Ontario Environment Canada, Great Lakes and Coporate Affairs Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of the Environment Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Toronto Port Authority

Utilities Allstream Bell Canada CN Rail


11

Cogeco Data Services Inc. CP Rail Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. Enbridge Pipeline Inc. Enwave Energy Corporation Hydro One Networks Inc Hydrostor Imperial Oil Ontario Provincial Police Prestige Telecom Rogers Cable Systems Sun-Canadian Pipe Line Company Ltd. Telus Tera Span Toronto Hydro

City Divisions and Agencies City Planning Parks, Forestry and Recreation Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Toronto EMS Toronto Fire Toronto Public Health Toronto Water

9.5 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES AND REPRESENTATIVES

The following review aboriginal communities and representatives have been contacted for their input on thisstudy:

Aboriginal Communities and Representatives Alderville First Nation Curve Lake First Nation Hiawatha First Nation (Mississauga of Rice Lake) Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Williams Treaty First Nations Co-ordinator

9.6 CONSULTATION PROCESS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

All comments received from the Notice of Commencement distribution and responses provided as part ofthis consultation process are provided in Appendix D.

Based on the comments received and responses provided, the City will proceed with the implementation ofthe preferred design concept.

REPORT

A-1

Appendix A – Process Flow Diagram

Process Flow Diagram

1

Raw

Water

2 3

Filters

Chlorine

To Lake Ontario

Sewer System

4

5

6

1 Intake

Screen Chamber

Low Lift Station

Filters

Clear Well

Reservoir

Residual Management Facility

2

3

4

5

6

7

Lake

Ontario

Polyaluminum

Chloride

Distribution System

Ammonia

Chlorine

Fluoride

Air Blower

Backwash Pump

Backwash Water

Settling Basins

Ashbridges Bay

Wastewater

Treatment Plant

Sodium

Bisulphite

7

CONTRACT No.DRAFTING:

SCALE:

DATE:

DESIGN: CHECK:

NUMBER:DRAWING

SIGNEDINITIALREVISIONSDATENo.

ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

DIRECTOR,FRANK CLARIZIO, P. ENG.

CAPITAL WORKS DELIVERYWATER TREATMENT AND SUPPLY

LARRY KORSON, P. ENG.ACTING DIRECTOR,

WaterWATER TREATMENT PLANT

DIAGRAM

PFD_002 001N.T.S.

MAY 2014

E.E. N.B. E.E.

0 FEB. 2014 N.B.ISSUED FOR TENDER

50200EE

Text Box

Removed off-site via land

REPORT

B-1

Appendix B - Notice of Commencement

Study OverviewThe City of Toronto will be investigating options for increasing the capacity of the Island Water Treatment Plant, located on the south side of Toronto Islands.

The City requires more operational flexibility both at the Island Water Treatment Plant to sustain peak production flows, as well as in the larger water supply system to balance supply with demand. To achieve this, we plan to increase the processing capacity of the Island Water Treatment Plant from 410 ML/day to 450 ML/day.

Information about this project is available on the City’s website at: toronto.ca/islandtp Information includes:

• Opportunity

• Alternative solutions

• Evaluation of alternative solutions

We would like to hear from youWe invite you to review the material provided online and provide any comments you have by July 4, 2014. Comments or questions should be directed to:

Mike LoganSenior Public Consultation CoordinatorCity of Toronto Metro Hall, 19th Fl.55 John St.Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Tel: 416-392-4360Fax: 416-392-2974TTY: 416-338-0889

Issue Date: June 19, 2014

Information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.

Island Water Treatment Plant Capacity Increase StudyMunicipal Class Environmental AssessmentNotice of Study Commencement and Invitation to Comment

REPORT

C-1

Appendix C - Notice of Completion

The City of Toronto has completed an investigation of options for increasing the capacity of the Island Water Treatment Plant, located on the south side of Toronto Islands. The study has determined that the preferred solution is to maximize the production capacity and treatment performance of the existing infrastructure at the Island Water Treatment Plant to increase its capacity from 410 ML/d to 450 ML/d.

Opportunities for Review A Project File Report documenting the environmental assessment study has been completed and has been placed on public record for a 30-day review period starting July 10, 2014 and ending August 8, 2014. It is available for review online at: toronto.ca/islandtp.

If you have any outstanding issues about this project, please address them to the City staff listed below and we will attempt to seek a mutually acceptable resolution.

Mike Logan Senior Public Consultation Coordinator City of Toronto Metro Hall, 19th Fl., 55 John St. Toronto, ON M5V 3C6

If concerns regarding this project cannot be resolved in discussion with the City of Toronto, 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.

The Minister must receive the request in writing by August 8, 2014 at the address below, and a copy must be sent to the City contact. If no requests are received, the City may proceed with this project as outlined in the Project File Report.

Director, Environmental Approvals Branch Ministry of the Environment 77 Wellesley St. West, 11th Fl. Toronto ON M7A 2T5

Issue Date: July 10, 2014

Information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.

Island Water Treatment Plant Capacity Increase StudyMunicipal Class Environmental AssessmentNotice of Completion

Tel: 416-392-4360 Fax: 416-392-2974 TTY: 416-338-0889 E-mail: [email protected]

Fax: 416-314-8452E-mail: [email protected]

REPORT

D-1

Appendix D - Consultation Comments andResponses

Date Person Organization Link Comment Response Response Date20-Jun Individual Email I was wondering how much research is planned for the

impact of the Toronto Island public school, located rightnext to the facility.As well how much the health and safety of the school andit's faculty and students play in your decision process.

Thanks very much for your question. As noted in theonline information, the recommended solution is tomaximize production capacity of the existing plantinfrastructure. This means that for the recommendedsolution, there would be no construction or operationalimpacts to the public including the school. Thefeasibility of achieving increased capacity usingexisting infrastructure has been studied and found to

20-Jun

23-Jun Aidan Pereira Ministry ofNaturalResources

Email It is unclear, at this time as to exactly what the undertakingmay involve. The MNR notes that the Island WaterTreatment Plant is located within an area containingwoodlands and wetlands; there are also records ofspecies at risk within the vicinity of the Treatment Plant.The proponent should take every reasonable step toavoid or minimize negative impacts on these features.

N/A

24-Jun Individual Email Thank you for this information about the upcoming reviewof the capacity increase proposal. Please place me onyour mailing list for this project.

Is there a eia doc available for the work now beingundertaken at the south-east corner of your facility ? First Iheard about it was biking past the newly-erected fence.

As a long term resident of the island, will there be anopportunity to visit the plant this summer ? I am interestedto see the changed pipeline connection and otheroperational features.

The information about the watermain you refer to isavaialble on our website(http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=45a78da78b151410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD). If you have any questions or comments about thecapacity increase study, please let me know.

24-Jun

24-Jun Individual Telephone

Concerned about construction impacts. The park hasnever been remediated properly after the new watermainconstruction.

There will be no construction associated with therecommended solution.

24-Jun

24-Jun Mark Hamilton Hydro One Email Hydo One does not have any concerns with yourproposed work on the Toronto islands.

24-Jun Candice Au Toronto Water Email We would like to be involved in the study as we currentlyhave infrastructure projects ongoing and planned that willsupport the Island WTP in the near future.

I spoke with Candice this morning. She was interestedin whether the Island WTP's proposed increase inrated capacity would have an effect on the downstreamside of TO Water's water supply and distribution flows.Her interest is more in the water system modelling inregard to eliminating the existing pressure bottleneckon the mainland. I explained that the proposed re-rating of the Island WTP doesn't change anything inToronto Water's supply system - that the mainlandpressure challenge (and opportunity) remains thesame. She was also interested to see if the newwatermain that has been installed half way across theIsland over the past winter has any bearing on this re-rating exercise. I explained that the two projects aremutually exclusive, but that we can discuss the bestapproach to the Plant's future service water supply

30-Jun

25-Jun Susan Hughes City Planning,HeritagePreservationServices

Email If there is no soil disturbance there is no need forarchaeology

N/A

27-Jun Avery Carr City Planning,CommunityPlanning Section

Email I would completely agree that solution #1, maximizing theproduction capacity, is the best option. If this can be donewithout designing and constructing additional infrastructurethen I see no reason why option 2 should be considered.

Thanks for letting us know about this.

N/A

30-Jun Dave Simpson Alderville FirstNation

Letter Keep Alderville apprised of any archaeological findings,burial sites or any environmental impacts, should any

N/A

7-Jul Lori Louks Hiawatha FirstNation

Letter Keep Hiawatha FN apprised of any archaeologicalfindings, burial sites or any environmental impacts, shouldany occur.

N/A

8-Jul Individual Email What are the requirements or conditions for the increasein capacity on the current infrastructure? This is not statedanywhere in the extremely brief presentation. If there arenone, what is the point of the consultation?

It has been determined that the existing plantinfrastructure can handle the increased capacity.Essentially, the increased capacity can be achieved bymaking the pumps work a little harder. The detailedengineering analysis that was undertaken to show thiswill be included in the Project File Report that will beavailable later this week. Please take a look at thisreport, which will be posted at www.toronto.ca/islandtpon Thursday.

An Environmental Assessment, which includes publicconsultation, is required any time a water treatmentplant's capacity needs to be increased. This ensuresthat the City looks at various options for achieving thenew capacity. In this case, the EA led us to theconclusion that the existing equipment can handle thiscapacity increase. Since there will be no constructionrequired, there is very little, if any, impact to theenvironment and surrounding community.

8-Jul

9-Jul Corey Kinsella Curve Lake FirstNation

Email Curve Lake First Nation has no specific interests in thisproject, given the expansion will utilize existing equipmentand infrastructure.

N/A

Island Water Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion - Project File Report

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Island Water Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion - Project File Report