cataraqui bay schedule c class … bay wwtp esr... · cataraqui bay wastewater treatment plant...

CATARAQUI BAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE

SCHEDULE C CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT VOLUME 1 OF 2

OCTOBER 16, 2012

Prepared by:

In Association with:

XCG Consultants Ltd.

6 Cataraqui Street Woolen Mill, West Wing, Suite 105

Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7

JLR No. 24208-01

Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report

J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited i JLR 24208-01

– TABLE OF CONTENTS –

VOLUME 1 OF 2

NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 4 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT .................................................................. 4 1.4 PROJECT TEAM................................................................................................... 4 1.5 PROJECT TIMEFRAME........................................................................................ 6

2.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT (PHASE 1) ............................................................................... 6 2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT.............................................................. 6 2.2 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS....................................... 7 2.3 CITY OF KINGSTON MASTER PLANNING STUDY............................................ 7

2.3.1 MASTER PLAN PROBLEM STATEMENT................................................ 8 2.3.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION DURING THE MASTER PLAN....................... 9

3.0 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS (PHASE 2) ......................................................................... 9 3.1 FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT.............................................................. 10 3.2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.1 – INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS .......... 10 3.3 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.2 – ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY

ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................... 11 3.4 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.3 – CAPACITY ASSESSMENT ................... 13 3.5 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.4 – LIQUID TRAIN TECHNOLOGY............. 14 3.6 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.5 – SOLIDS TRAIN TECHNOLOGY............ 18 3.7 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.6 – DIGESTER GAS UTILIZATION............. 23 3.8 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.7 – ODOUR MANAGEMENT....................... 24 3.9 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.8 – LONG TERM CONSTRAINT MAPPING25 3.10 SUPPORTING STUDIES .................................................................................... 26

3.10.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT...................................................... 26 3.10.2 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT................................................................ 27 3.10.3 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT........................................................... 27 3.10.4 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS............................................................. 28

4.0 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR THE PREFERRED SOLUTIONS (PHASE 3) .............. 28 4.1 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ..................................................................................... 28 4.2 PRELIMINARY SITE LAYOUT............................................................................ 30 4.3 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST........................................................................ 32

5.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................... 34 6.0 CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 38

6.1 STAKEHOLDER AND REVIEW AGENCY CONSULTATION............................. 38 6.2 PROJECT COMMITTEE AND CONSULTATION MEETINGS............................ 38

7.0 NEXT STEPS.................................................................................................................. 39


J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited ii JLR 24208-01

– TABLE OF CONTENTS –

VOLUME 1 OF 2 (continued)

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Project Milestones .......................................................................................................6

Table 2: Cataraqui Bay WWTP Current Certificate of Approval Capacity...............................10

Table 3: Proposed Cataraqui Bay WWTP Influent Characteristics .........................................11

Table 4: Existing Effluent Compliance Limits at Cataraqui Bay WWTP ..................................12

Table 5: Recommended Effluent Design Objectives and Compliance Limits at Cataraqui Bay WWTP.......................................................................................................................13

Table 6: Evaluation Matrix with Weighted Scoring ..................................................................16

Table 7: Conceptual Level Design Requirement – Primary Clarifiers, Biological Aerated Filters, and Disinfection (Updated from Technical Memorandum No.4)....................18

Table 8: Conceptual Level Design Requirements – Anaerobic Digesters...............................22

Table 9: Conceptual Level Design Requirements – Dewatering Centrifuges and Biosolids Storage......................................................................................................................22

Table 10: Opinion of Probable Costs ........................................................................................33

Table 11: Potential Effects Caused by Proposed Works and Proposed Mitigation Measures ..35

Table 12: Summary of Critical Consultation Meetings and Workshops ....................................39

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Cataraqui Bay WWTP Location (Courtesy of Google Maps) ......................................1

Figure 2: Cataraqui Bay WWTP Site Layout ..............................................................................2

Figure 4: Process Flow Schematic – Alternative 1 – Expansion of Anaerobic Digestion .........20

Figure 5: Process Flow Schematic – Alternative 2 – Expansion of Anaerobic Digestion...........21

Figure 6: Process Flow Schematic of Digester Gas Utilization at Cataraqui Bay WWTP..........24

Figure 7: Zoning Map Including the Cataraqui Bay WWTP and Surrounding Areas (Courtesy of City of Kingston Official Plan) .....................................................................................25

Figure 9: Proposed Future Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Layout................31

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – TECHNICAL MEMORANDA


J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited iii JLR 24208-01

VOLUME 2 OF 2

- TABLE OF CONTENTS -

APPENDIX B – ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

APPENDIX C – ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

APPENDIX D – GEOTEHCNICAL ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX E – PLANNING CONTEXT

APPENDIX F – PUBLIC CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATIONS

APPENDIX G – 2010 CITY OF KINGSTON SEWER MASTER PLAN


J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - ES 1 - JLR 24208-01



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In September 2010, Utilities Kingston completed a Sewage Infrastructure Master Plan for the

City of Kingston Urban Area. The Master Plan identified works to meet existing and future

wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment requirements resulting from forecasted

growth, up to and beyond the year 2026. One of the priority projects identified as part of the

preferred solution developed through the Master Plan is an expansion of the Cataraqui Bay

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). In addition to the Master Plan recommendations,

Utilities Kingston has determined that some additional modifications to the wastewater system

are to be implemented, including the possible re-direction of wastewater from the Portsmouth

Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) to the Cataraqui Bay WWTP. Based on the foregoing, the

Cataraqui Bay WWTP must be upgraded and requires an increase in its rated capacity from

38 800 m3/d to 68 000 m3/d.

Planning such an expansion to the existing Cataraqui Bay WWTP is being carried out in

accordance with Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA), as

described in Sections 1 and 2 of this report.

As part of the Class EA process, the following key technical issues were reviewed through

separate Technical Memoranda, including:

- Technical Memorandum No .1: Influent Wastewater Characteristics;

- Technical Memorandum No .2: Assimilative Capacity Assessment;

- Technical Memorandum No .3: Capacity Assessment;

- Technical Memorandum No .4: Liquid Train Treatment Technology;

- Technical Memorandum No .5: Solids Train Treatment Technology;

- Technical Memorandum No .6: Digester Gas Utilization;

- Technical Memorandum No .7: Odour Management; and

- Technical Memorandum No .8: Long Term Constraints Mapping.

A summary of the findings and recommendations from these Technical Memoranda can be

found in Section 3.

In addition, a Planning Context Study, Stage 1 Archaeological Studies, Ecological Studies, and

Geotechnical Assessments were carried out and are also summarized in Section 3 of the ESR.



The recommended undertaking involves expanding the plant liquid train process with Biological

Aerated Filters (BAF) and solids train process with Anaerobic Digestion and an Enclosed

Biosolids Cake Storage Facility. The digester gas produced will be utilized for heating when

required, or wasted by flare. The opportunity to implement a cogeneration facility using digester

gas is to be further investigated during the preliminary design phase.

The conceptual site layout for the proposed Cataraqui Bay WWTP upgrade is presented in

Section 4 of this report. It should be noted that the layout will be further optimized during the

preliminary design phase, to confirm the locations for each process unit.

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 Section 5.

Consultation with public and government agencies is an important component of a Class EA

process. Section 6 summarizes the consultation activities that occurred during this project.

The Capital Budget to upgrade and expand the existing plant to 68 000 m3/d is estimated at

$100 Million plus HST, expressed in 2012 dollars. This figure does include improvements

identified in the Condition Assessment of the facility. For comparison, the Ravensview WPCP,

constructed between 2007 and 2009, cost approximately $106 million for a flow of 95 000 m3/d

(or between $1 100 and $1 200 per cubic meter). The proposed work at Cataraqui Bay, in 2012

dollars, would cost between $1 400 and $1 500 per cubic meter. It should be noted that the

total BOD loading to Cataraqui Bay WWTP, is anticipated to be higher than that of Ravensview,

despite a lower average day flow.

The rationale for the project is the result of three identified needs:

Improvements to existing infrastructure (as identified in the Condition

Assessment);

Enhanced treatment to improve effluent quality; and

Additional capacity to accommodate further growth in the City of Kingston.

The OPC for improvements to the existing plant, as identified in the Condition Assessment

report, is estimated at $20 million. The cost for improvements for enhanced effluent quality and

to accommodate further growth is therefore estimated at approximately $80 million.


J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 1 - JLR 24208-01

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The City of Kingston owns and Utilities Kingston operates the Cataraqui Bay Wastewater

Treatment Plant (WWTP), located at 409 Front Road, Kingston, ON, as shown in Figure 1. The

site is to the south and east of the Invista Canada Co. plant and west of Cataraqui Bay.

Figure 1: Cataraqui Bay WWTP Location (Courtesy of Google Maps)

The Cataraqui Bay WWTP was originally constructed in 1962 and has undergone several

expansions since that time. The WWTP currently services residential, commercial, and

industrial properties and also receives septage from the surrounding area. Sewage from the

west end of the City of Kingston is collected and conveyed by gravity and forcemains to the

plant. The existing plant has a rated capacity of 38 800 m3/d, a peak design capacity of

134 400 m3/d for the primary treatment, and 69 200 m3/d for the secondary treatment system.

The expansion completed in 2003 established the current WWTP layouts as shown in Figure 2.



The Cataraqui Bay WWTP is a conventional activated sludge (CAS) wastewater treatment

plant. The wastewater flowing to the WWTP comes from on on-site pumping station and a

forcemain from the Days Road Pumping Station. Sewage flows to the facility by gravity, is

pumped on-site, and then combined with flows from the off-site Days Road Pumping Station at

the head of two grit removal tanks. The degritted sewage passes through mechanical bar

screens and then enters the primary settling tanks. Primary effluent passes through aeration

tanks, followed by secondary clarifiers. Finally, chlorine is added to the secondary clarifier

effluent before discharge into Lake Ontario. A dechlorination system was constructed in 2010 to

remove residual chlorine in the plant effluent. Waste activated sludge (WAS) from secondary

clarifiers is thickened in rotary drum thickeners. The thickened WAS and primary sludge are

anaerobically digested and subsequently dewatered by centrifuge. The dewatered biosolids are

stored onsite at the sludge storage pad when land application is not permitted. A process flow

diagram of the existing WWTP is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2: Cataraqui Bay WWTP Site Layout



Figure 3: Cataraqui Bay WWTP Process Flow Diagram



1.2 Objectives

The overall goal of this Class Environmental Assessment (EA) is to develop a wastewater

servicing strategy for the projected service population of the Cataraqui Bay WWTP that is

economically sustainable, environmentally sound, and reflective of the short and long term

needs and growth potential of the area. The specific objectives of this EA include:

To assess the plant’s existing condition;

To address the challenges of meeting more stringent effluent quality;

To accommodate treatment capacity for future urban development;

To recommend preferred treatment technologies and design concept for the

plant’s next expansion; and

To present an Opinion of Probable Cost for the proposed expansion.

1.3 Environmental Study Report

This Class EA has been carried out following the Schedule ‘C’ planning process of the Municipal

Class EA (as amended), as approved under the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) R.S.O.

1990, Chapter E.18. The Schedule ‘C’ process requires that an Environmental Study Report

(ESR) be completed which documents the process followed in determining alternative solutions

and design concepts. Environmental impacts of the design concepts were evaluated and

mitigation measures were identified.

1.4 Project Team

The following Project Team was involved in carrying out this Class EA:

Proponent:

Utilities Kingston

85 Lappan’s Lane, P.O. Box 790

Kingston, ON K7L 4X7

Telephone: (613) 546-1181

Contact: Chantal Chiddle, P.Eng., Utilities Engineer

Prime Consulting Engineer:

J.L. Richards & Associates Limited

203 – 863 Princess Street

Kingston, ON K7L 5N4

Telephone: (613) 544-1424

Contact: Michael Troop, P.Eng., M.Eng., Environmental Engineer



Process Sub-consultant:

XCG Consultants Limited

6 Cataraqui Street, Woolen Mill, West Wing, Suite 105

Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7

Telephone: (613) 542-5888

Contact: Emil Rafanan, P.Eng., Process Engineer

Utilities Kingston, as the Proponent, initiated this project in August 2010. Utilities Kingston has

actively participated in directing and administering this Class EA. Representatives of the

Municipal staff participated as members of the Project Committee. Utilities Kingston was

responsible for issuing notices to the public and communicating with local residents.

J.L. Richards & Associates Limited provided project coordination, undertook technical reviews

and investigations, advised/liaised with stakeholders, prepared interim reports and the ESR, and

organized the Public Information Centres (PICs).

XCG Consultants Limited provided process expertise throughout the Class EA and was

responsible for the preparation of treatment technology Technical Memoranda No.1 to No.5.

Various supporting studies were also completed during the Class EA by the following sub-

consultants:

Archaeological Assessment Sub-consultant No.1:

Adams Heritage

3783 Maple Crest Court, R.R.#1

Inverary, ON K0H 1X0

Telephone: (613) 353-1463

Archaeological Assessment Sub-consultant No.2:

Past Recovery Archaeological Services

4534 Bolingbroke Road, R.R.#3

Maberly, ON K0H 2B0

Telephone: (613) 268-2426

Ecological Assessment Sub-consultant:

Ecological Services

3803 Sydenham Road, R.R.#1

Elginburg, ON K0H 1M0

Telephone: (613) 376-6916



Geotechnical Assessment Sub-consultant:

Inspec-Sol Inc.

1225 Gardiners Road, Unit 104

Kingston, ON K7P 0G3

Telephone: (613) 389-9812

The Planning Consideration memorandum was prepared by J.L. Richards & Associates Limited.

1.5 Project Timeframe

Table 1 provides a summary of key project dates and milestones.

Table 1: Project Milestones

Date Milestone

August 3, 2010 Project Initiation Notice Issued

July 12, 2012 Public Information Centre No. 1 held

August 30, 2012 Public Information Centre No. 2 held

October 16, 2012 Project Completion Notice Issued

October 16, 2012 Environmental Study Report placed on Public Record

2.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT (PHASE 1)

2.1 Environmental Assessment Act

The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) was enacted in 1976 and applies to most

public sector undertakings. Public sector undertakings often include roads and highways, transit

facilities, waste management facilities, sewage and water works, and flood protection works. In

1987, the first Municipal Class EA prepared by the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) on

behalf of Ontario Municipalities was approved under the Ontario Environmental Assessment

Act. Updates and amendments have subsequently been made in 1993, 2000, 2007, and 2011.

The purpose of the EA Act is the betterment of people of any part of Ontario by providing for the

protection, conservation, and wise management in Ontario of the environment (R.S.O. 1990,

c.E.18, s.2).



2.2 Class Environmental Assessment Process

The Class EA is a project-specific environmental assessment process that is followed for

common types of projects to streamline the review process, while ensuring that the project

meets the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. It involves detailed site-specific

information gathering and studies, as well as consultation with the public and stakeholder

agencies. Since the project is being conducted as a Schedule C Class EA, an Environmental

Study Report (ESR) containing all the background information and decision-making rationales

must be provided for public review. This report serves as a summary of this information.

The purpose of this Environmental Study Report (ESR) is to document the steps taken while

completing Phase 1, 2, and 3 of the Class EA process for the Cataraqui Bay WWTP project,

satisfying the requirements of a Schedule C undertaking. The information is presented

chronologically to provide a summary of the activities undertaken in arriving at the preferred

solution.

2.3 City of Kingston Master Planning Study

Utilities Kingston commissioned a Master Planning Study to identify the necessary infrastructure

required to provide conveyance and treatment capacity for sanitary sewer up to 2026. The

Master Plan was completed in September 2010 by CH2M HILL Canada Limited and XCG

Consultants Limited. As per the Draft Official Plan (2006), 117 200 people in the City of

Kingston urban area are serviced by the sewage infrastructure and wastewater treatment

systems managed by Utilities Kingston. In addition to local and trunk sewers, thirty-three

pumping stations and two wastewater treatment plants (Cataraqui Bay and Ravensview)

provide conveyance and treatment for sanitary and combined sewage.

As defined by the Municipal Class EA Process, the Master Plan satisfies Phase 1 and 2 of the

Class EA process, including the requirements for public and agency consultation input. It should

be noted that during the course of the Cataraqui Bay WWTP Environmental Assessment, Phase

1 and 2 were re-visited to investigate the opportunity to divert Portsmouth Sewershed flow from

Ravensview WWTP to Cataraqui Bay WWTP. More details can be found in Section 3.2 of this

ESR.



2.3.1 Master Plan Problem Statement

The problem statement developed in the Master Plan was as follows:

“Utilities Kingston has initiated a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study to develop

Sewer Infrastructure Master Plan for the City of Kingston Urban Area. An updated

Master Plan is required to guide the Utilities’ efforts to:

Advance the goad of containment/virtual elimination of combined sewer overflows

Maximize the effectiveness of the existing sewer system

Provide adequate system capacity to meet growth-based demand to the year 2026

Prioritize large scale capital improvements to the sewer system

Provide information to stakeholders on issues and challenges associated with Kingston’s

unique sewer system

This Master Plan is intended to identify sewer infrastructure needs to the planning year

2026. The scope of the analysis was also expanded to investigate the anticipated

sewage flows generated from full build-out (i.e. growth beyond 2026) within the study

area. The Master Plan also includes a comprehensive update to the Pollution Control

Plan, related specifically to the mitigation of impacts due to combined sewer overflows

(CSO’s), and with a goal of identifying the necessary steps to achieve “virtual

elimination” of CSO’s in the long term.”

The Master Plan identified the Cataraqui Bay WWTP as a conventional activated sludge plant

providing secondary treatment and anaerobic digestion for sludge treatment. The average day

flow rated capacity for the plant is 38 800 m3/d. The Master Plan identified the upcoming EA

work for the plant upgrade to confirm site configuration, approach to wet weather flow

management, treatment approach, and outfall requirement.

Based on the population projection estimate within the servicing area of Cataraqui Bay WWTP,

the Master Plan recommended an increase in the average day flow to 58 000 m3/d beyond

2026. Upon the completion of the Master Plan and during the Cataraqui Bay WWTP EA, the

plant capacity was re-visited by Utilities Kingston and was increased to incorporate the flow

diversion from Portsmouth Sewage Pumping Station. The updated flow to the plant is discussed

in Section 3.2 of this ESR.



2.3.2 Public Consultation During the Master Plan

The Municipal Class EA framework requires that the public be informed and consulted about the

activities undertaken as part of both Master Plans and Class EA’s. Three mandatory points of

consultation are required during the preparation of a Master Plan, including:

At the commencement of the Master Plan;

At the identification of the alternative solutions; and

At the completion of the Master Plan Report.

Key stakeholders for the Master Plan included:

The community of the City of Kingston;

Special Interest Groups;

The Government Review Team for Master Plans;

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA);

Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE);

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO); and

Parks Canada

3.0 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS (PHASE 2)

Following the completion of the Master Plan, Utilities Kingston retained J.L. Richards &

Associates Limited, in association with XCG Consultants Limited, to complete a Schedule C

Class EA at the Cataraqui Bay WWTP to carry out specific investigations to plan various

upgrades and expansion of the existing plant. The following sections provide a summary of the

reports and Technical Memoranda completed which constitute the major work elements for this

Class EA.

The reports completed can be found in Appendix A of this ESR.



3.1 Facility Condition Assessment

The Facility Condition Assessment report provides a summary of the condition of the existing

WWTP. A site-wide inspection was undertaken by disciplines (civil, structural, architectural,

process mechanical, and electrical engineering). The civil review consisted of an assessment of

roads, visible manholes, swales, and fencing. The structural review was carried out for readily

accessible structural systems, i.e. portions of the building structures that could be observed

from public and operational spaces, but not for the confined spaces. The architectural review

investigated onsite buildings and complexes. The process mechanical review consisted of a

condition assessment of the liquid train, solids train, and gas train process at the plant. The

electrical review evaluated site electrical distribution, standby generator, and plant

instrumentation control system. Repair and upgrade action items were identified by each

discipline following the site inspection. Subsequently, an Opinion of Probable Cost was

developed to refurbish and upgrade the existing facility. It should be noted that the cost

estimates for various upgrades were established under the assumption that the same treatment

technology, i.e. conventional activated sludge with anaerobic digestion, was to be applied during

the next expansion.

3.2 Technical Memorandum No. 1 – Influent Characteristics

The Technical Memorandum analyzed historical influent characteristics and developed plant

influent design basis conditions for existing and future wastewater servicing needs.

The Cataraqui Bay WWTP is operated by Utilities Kingston under Ministry of Environment

(MOE) Certificate of Approval (C of A) Number 0658-86WNYX, amended July 19, 2010. Table 2

summarizes the C of A rated flow capacities to the WWTP.

Table 2: Cataraqui Bay WWTP Current Certificate of Approval Capacity

Parameter Flow Capacity

Average Daily Flow 38 800 m3/d

Peak Flow

Primary Treatment Facilities

Secondary Treatment Facilities

134 400 m3/d

69 200 m3/d

The future flow projections were completed based on a review of the historical flow data, Sewer

Master Plan, design guidelines, and related future flow information. As noted previously, upon

completion of the Master Plan, it was determined that the wastewater flow from Portsmouth

Sewershed is to be eventually diverted from Ravensview WWTP to Cataraqui Bay WWTP. This



resulted in an increase in influent flow to the Cataraqui Bay WWTP by 10 000 m3/d from the

proposed flow in the Master Plan. The design values are summarized and consolidated in

Table 3.

Table 3: Proposed Cataraqui Bay WWTP Influent Characteristics (With Contribution from Portsmouth Sewershed)

3.3 Technical Memorandum No. 2 – Assimilative Capacity Assessment

The objectives of this Technical Memorandum were to determine representative background

water quality for Cataraqui Bay, in the vicinity of the WWTP outfalls, to determine currents in the

vicinity of the plant outfalls, to conduct an assimilative capacity assessment of the receiving

waters, to complete mixing zone analysis based on proposed effluent limit, and to formulate

recommendations for effluent limits for the upgrade based on the above.

The existing effluent compliance limits and design objectives are summarized in Table 4. A copy

of the existing Certificate of Approval can be found in Appendix A.

Average Daily Flow (m3/d) 68 000

Maximum Daily Flow (m3/d) 163 300

Peak Instantaneous Flow (m3/d) 205 900

BOD5 Loading

Average (kg/d)

Maximum Month (kg/d)

12 700

20 320

TSS Loading

Average (kg/d)


15 040

24 064

TKN Loading

Average (kg/d)


2 230

3 345

TP Loading

Average (kg/d)


360

540



Table 4: Existing Effluent Compliance Limits at Cataraqui Bay WWTP

Effluent Parameter Compliance Limits Design Limits

Concentration

(mg/L)

Average Waste Loading (kg/d)

Concentration

(mg/L)

Average Waste Loading (kg/d)

BOD5 25.0 (1) 970 (3) 15.0 n/a

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 25.0 (1) 970 (3) 15.0 n/a

Total Phosphorus (TP) 1.0 (2) 39.0 (4) 1.0 n/a

Total Chlorine Residual 0.02 (2) n/a 0.02 n/a

E.Coli - Geomean n/a n/a <200 counts per 100 mL

n/a

Note: n/a – No data available

(1) Based on annual average concentration.

(2) Based on monthly average concentrations – minimum of 1 sample per week.

(3) Based on annual average loading.

(4) Based on monthly average loading.

The study reviewed the ambient water quality, MOE Policies with regard to Provincial Water

Quality Objectives (PWQO), and Lake Ontario current speeds and water levels. Receiver water

quality impacts were determined for each water quality parameter, based on the effluent limits

determined to be in compliance with MOE Guideline F-5, provincial water quality objectives for

streams and lakes, and CEPA requirements. The CORMIX mixing zone model was used for

detailed assessment of mixing zone characteristics.

The key findings of this assimilative capacity assessment include:

Based on available water data, Lake Ontario, in the vicinity of the Cataraqui Bay

WWTP, is a MOE Policy 1 receiver for total phosphorus, total ammonia, E.Coli,

and dissolved oxygen. Concentrations of total suspended solids are low.

Lake Ontario has the assimilative capacity for loadings of all parameters

assessed in this study: TP, un-ionized ammonia, BOD5, and TSS from Cataraqui

Bay WWTP.

Lowest observed Lake Ontario water levels were recommended for use in the

mixing zone modeling, and a current of 2 cm/s was recommended for use in the

mixing zone modeling for all seasons.

CORMIX models were developed for each of the two outfall pipes, and these

predicted plumes were overlayed to generate a combined plume.

The winter season had the largest limiting conditions resultant TP plume, which

was approximately 600 metres long.



Un-ionized ammonia plumes did not exceed 40 metres in any season or current

direction.

The results indicated that the predicted seasonal mixing zones are reasonable in

extent for proposed future conditions.

The recommended effluent limits and effluent objectives for the next expansion at Cataraqui

Bay WWTP are summarized in Table 5. A copy of the correspondence between JLR/XCG and

the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for the proposed design objectives and limits is included

as an attachment to this Technical Memorandum in Appendix A.

Table 5: Recommended Effluent Design Objectives and Compliance Limits at Cataraqui Bay WWTP

Effluent Parameter Design Limits (mg/L) Compliance Limits (mg/L)

BOD5 15.0 25.0

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 15.0 25.0

Total Phosphorus (TP) 0.8 1.0

Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Summer (June 1 to Nov 30)

Winter (Dec 1 to May 31)

6.0

12.0

8.0

15.0

Total Chlorine Residual Non-Detectable 0.04

E.Coli (CFU/100 mL) 100 200

3.4 Technical Memorandum No. 3 – Capacity Assessment

This Technical Memorandum reviewed the historic operation and performance of the Cataraqui

Bay WWTP, conducted a desktop capacity assessment of individual unit processes, identified

unit processes that limit the plant’s capacity or inhibit the performance of the plant, and

commented on the potential for plant re-rating. The current plant process flow diagram can be

found in Figure 3.

The evaluation of the plant revealed that under historic operation conditions (2007-2009), the

Cataraqui Bay WWTP has performed well and its average BOD5, TSS, and TP effluent

concentrations met and exceeded the C of A objectives and compliance limit concentrations

requirements. The WWTP historic performance reflects operating as a conventional activated

sludge process and generally experiencing average day and peak flows that have not stressed

the capacity of the secondary treatment unit processes. Based on evaluated indicated

capacities, the primary treatment, disinfection, and biosolids storage unit process capacities

may be most constraining in terms of being able to accommodate future flows and/or achieve



the C of A rated capacity. In addition, if/when nitrification is required, the existing conventional

activated sludge bioreactors would require expansion.

3.5 Technical Memorandum No. 4 – Liquid Train Technology

This Technical Memorandum identified various liquid train stream process alternatives for the

Cataraqui Bay WWTP, evaluated each alternative, and recommended the preferred alternative

design concept.

A long list of treatment technologies were considered for the implementation at Cataraqui Bay

WWTP, including Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Integrated Fixed-Film/Activated Sludge

(IFAS), Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), Biological Aerated Filter (BAF), Moving Bed Biofilm

Reactor (MBBR), Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR), Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC), and

Activated Sludge with Ballasted Mixed Liquor.

The preliminary review and evaluation of the long-listed technologies identified the alternatives

that satisfy the project objectives and meet the site constraints, which were further developed

into the following alternative design concepts:

Alternative 1 – CAS

Alternative 2 – IFAS

Alternative 3 – MBR:

a) Convert existing CAS to MBR, and expand as required.

b) Retain existing CAS, and construct additional MBR treatment trains.

Alternative 4 – BAF:

a) Decommission the existing CAS bioreactors, and construct a new BAF

system. Retain existing primary clarifiers, and convert existing secondary

clarifiers to primary clarifiers.

b) Retain existing CAS, and construct new BAF treatment trains.

To facilitate the evaluation and selection of the preferred solution, a decision matrix was

prepared, as shown in Table 6. The decision making process was completed during a workshop

held on June 28, 2012, involving senior managers, project managers and operation staff from

Utilities Kingston, and project engineers from J.L. Richards & Associates Limited and XCG

Consultant Limited.



The evaluation criteria were established to assess the impacts on the natural environment,

social/cultural/community environment, and technical environment during the construction

phase and the operation phase. In addition, cost implications and the capability to

accommodate future expansions on the existing site were also considered. They were weighted

between 1 and 15 points to reflect the significance to Utilities Kingston and the operation staff,

with the 15-point criterion resulting in the most significant impact.

A score between 1 and 5 was assigned to each alternative under each evaluation criterion, as

follows:

Score of 1 – Does not meet criterion/negative impact/highest cost;

Score of 2 – Meets some aspects of the criterion/potential for negative impact.

Score of 3 – Results in no significant change to impact/ middle range cost.

Score of 4 – Meets most aspects of the criterion/little to no negative impact.

Score of 5 – Meets criterion objectives/positive impact/lowest cost.

The weighted score is a result of multiplication of the criterion weighting and alternative scoring.

The alternative receiving the highest score is considered the preferred alternative. A sensitivity

analysis was also completed for the top ranked alternatives under various criteria weight change

to confirm the selection.

The preferred alternative design concept was Alternative 4(a) – Decommission existing CAS

bioreactors, construct new BAF, and convert secondary clarifiers into primary clarifiers.

The BAF process is a high-rate biological process that utilizes the features of attached growth

biological filters and the efficient oxygen transfer capabilities of the diffused aeration systems.

The process consists of a biological reactor filled with a 2 to 5 m media bed, which serves as

both a filter and a surface for biological activity. The wastewater is fed from the top or bottom of

the reactor, depending on the configuration, and process air is supplied from the bottom. The

influent solids and biomass produced in a BAF accumulate in the filters and are removed by

periodic backwashing using secondary effluent stored in a tank. The BAF process eliminate the

need for secondary clarifiers, as the biological treatment and solids separation processes both

take place within the BAF’s filter bed. As a result, the BAF process has a smaller footprint

requirement than the CAS process.

The BAF process is capable of providing nitrification to meet the design effluent ammonia limits

and adequate solids separation to meet the future design effluent TSS and TP limits, providing

effluent quality superior to that of secondary treatment alone.



Table 6: Evaluation Matrix with Weighted Scoring

Scoring Weighted Scoring Criterion Criteria Weight Alternative Alternative

1 2 3a 3b 4a 4b 1 2 3a 3b 4a 4b

Operation Phase CAS IFAS MBR MBR+CAS BAF BAF+CAS CAS IFAS MBR MBR+CAS BAF BAF+CAS

Effect on surface water 3 3 3 5 4 4 4 9 9 15 12 12 12 Disruption of adjacent residential, community and recreational features

5 3 3 4 3 3 3 15 15 20 15 15 15

Performance and experience in similar climates and size

4 5 3 2 3 5 5 20 12 8 12 20 20

Operational complexity/ familiarity of Operations staff with process

12 5 4 3 1 5 4 60 48 36 12 60 48

Ease of Operations/ Operation time usage 4 4 3 3 2 5 4 16 12 12 8 20 16 Compatibility with existing infrastructure 2 5 5 4 4 2 3 10 10 8 8 4 6 Ability to consistently meet effluent requirements

5 3 3 5 4 5 4 15 15 25 20 25 20

Space available for Solids Train (inc. odour treatment)

5 1 2 5 5 4 4 5 10 25 25 20 20

Construction Phase

Effect on surface water quality 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Social/Cultural/Community Environments 1 2 2 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 Disruption of adjacent residential, community and recreational features

2 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 6 8 6 6 8

Constructability 5 4 4 3 4 2 4 20 20 15 20 10 20

Economic

Capital cost of construction 10 5 5 2 1 3 4 50 50 20 10 30 40 Annual operating costs 10 5 4 1 2 4 4 50 40 10 20 40 40

Future Expansion

Ability to accommodate future expansion on existing site

15 1 2 5 5 4 4 15 30 75 75 60 60

Ability to meet future, more stringent effluent limits

15 1 1 5 4 4 3 15 15 75 60 60 45

Total 311 299 361 311 390 378 Rank 4 6 3 4 1 2



Under the preferred alternative, the existing CAS process would be converted to a BAF process

sized for a rated capacity of 68 000 m3/d. This would involve providing a new BAF system to

replace the existing aeration tanks and secondary clarifiers. The existing aeration tanks would

be decommissioned. To provide the required increase in primary clarifier capacity, existing

secondary clarifiers will be converted into primary clarifiers. The new BAF system would be

constructed complete with an intermediate pumping station, backwash water holding tank, and

all required appurtenances such as blower, controls, and piping.

Upon completion of the Technical Memorandum No. 4, investigations were conducted to

evaluate the option to co-thicken BAF residuals with raw sludge produced in the primary

clarifiers. Under the current CAS process, waste activated sludge (WAS) is not co-thickened

with the primary sludge. WAS is sent to Rotary Drum Thickeners (RDT) for thickening and then

pumped to digestion. Raw sludge is sent directly to the digestion process. The new BAF

process produces backwash residual water. Compared to the WAS produced from CAS, BAF

backwash is low in solids concentration, which requires thickening prior to digestion. Depending

on the thickening process (e.g. RDT, gravity belt thickening, gravity settling, etc.); extra tankage

would be required either to store the backwash water or to settle out the solids. Sending BAF

backwash directly to the thickening process may not be feasible due to the large quantity of BAF

backwash water and limited space available onsite. For the co-thickening (BAF backwash water

with the primary sludge) option, it would result in additional primary clarifier tankage to

accommodate for the flow increase and solids loading throughput. Calculations showed that by

converting all the existing secondary clarifiers into primary clarifiers, the required primary

clarifier surface area for co-thickening can be achieved. No new storage/holding tanks would be

necessary for the thickening process. The use of the existing infrastructure can be maximized.

As a result, it is recommended to use the co-thickening process at Cataraqui Bay WWTP.

Two disinfection options were considered for the upgrade and expanded Cataraqui Bay WWTP,

including chlorine disinfection and UV disinfection. Evaluations showed that chlorine

disinfection, which is the existing process, has the lowest capital and life cycle cost. Therefore,

chlorination is selected as the recommended disinfection option.

Table 7 provides a summary of the updated design requirement for primary clarifiers (under co-

thickening), BAF process, and chlorine disinfection. These values should be confirmed during

preliminary design phase.



Table 7: Conceptual Level Design Requirement – Primary Clarifiers, Biological Aerated Filters, and Disinfection (Updated from Technical Memorandum No.4)

Primary Clarifiers (With Co-Thickening)

Number of Existing Primary Clarifiers 4

Existing Primary Clarifier Surface Area 912 m2

Number of Existing Secondary Clarifiers 5

Existing Secondary Clarifier Surface Area 2 176 m2

Number of Existing Secondary Clarifiers Converted to Primary Clarifiers 5

Total Number of Primary Clarifiers After Conversion 9

Total Clarifier Surface Area 3 088 m2

Biological Aerated Filters (BAF)

Number of BAF Cells 11 plus 1 spare

BAF Tanks Footprint 68.5 m x 43 m

Chlorine Contact Tanks

Number of Existing Chlorine Tanks 1

Existing Chlorine Tank Volume 1 100 m3

Number of New Chlorine Tanks 1

New Chlorine Tank Volume 1 100 m3

Total Number of Chlorine Tanks 2

Total Chlorine Tank Volume 2 200 m3

3.6 Technical Memorandum No. 5 – Solids Train Technology

The Technical Memorandum identified various sludge digestion, biosolids handling, and

biosolids storage alternatives for the Cataraqui Bay WWTP, to meet future treatment

requirements.

The existing solids treatment train consists of the following treatment units: rotary drum

thickeners (RDT’s), anaerobic digesters, sludge holding tanks, dewatering centrifuges, open

sludge drying bed, and open biosolids storage pad.

Long listed technologies were considered for the above unit process as alternatives for the

plant’s next expansion, including:

Residual Thickening Options: Gravity belt thickening, gravity thickening, rotating

drum thickeners, dissolved air flotation, thickening centrifuges, and co-thickening.



Sludge Stabilization Options: Aerobic digestion, alkaline stabilization, mesophilic

anaerobic digestion, temperature-phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD), and side

stream processes to enhance volatile solids (VS) destruction.

Biosolids Storage Options: Open cake storage pad and enclosed storage bunker.

The implementation of residual thickening unit process was discussed; and for the purpose of

developing conceptual level design for the solids treatment train, a conservative approach was

taken to maximize the potential footprint requirements, in order to ensure that the design would

fit. The existing RDT’s could be retained for use to supplement co-thickening in the primary

clarifiers, to further increase the digester feed concentrations. Review and selection of the

preferred thickening process should be made during the preliminary design.

For the sludge stabilization options, the following technologies, alone or in combination, were

carried forward into the development of solids train alternatives:

Alternative 1(a): Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (Existing Process);

Alternative 1(b): Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD); and

Alternative 2: Anaerobic Digestion with a Side Stream Process to Enhance

Volatile Solids (VS) Destruction.

Figures 4 and 5 present the process flow diagram for each alternative. Both solids treatment

train design alternatives would meet all the requirements of the study objectives. As a result,

any of the alternatives are feasible for the plant’s next expansion. For Alternative 2, because

various side stream processes are available that have the potential to improve the performance

of the existing mesophilic anaerobic digestion system in terms of VS destruction, it is

recommended that pilot testing be conducted during the design phase.

For the biosolids storage options, it is recommended that an enclosed biosolids storage facility,

similar to the one constructed at Ravensview WPCP, be considered. The enclosed bunker

system provides compact footprint, eliminates impacts from precipitation, and allows collection

and treatment of odours generated from the biosolids.



Figure 4: Process Flow Schematic – Alternative 1 – Expansion of Anaerobic Digestion



Figure 5: Process Flow Schematic – Alternative 2 – Expansion of Anaerobic Digestion

Tables 8 and 9 present the conceptual design requirements for the anaerobic digesters,

dewatering, and biosolids storage.

It is recommended that the preferred design concept be selected during the preliminary design

phase. This will allow the City to pilot test for various side stream treatment processes, if

desired, as well as to conduct a detailed life cycle cost assessment of the alternative to identify

the most cost effective design to be carried forward.



Table 8: Conceptual Level Design Requirements – Anaerobic Digesters

Parameter Design Value

Primary Digesters

Existing:

Number 2

Volume (Each) Digester No. 3: 3 060 m3 Digester No. 2: 1 620 m3

Volume (Total) 4 680 m3

New:

Volume 6 480 m3

Digested Sludge Holding Tank

Existing:

Number 1

Volume 1 540 m3

Estimated Storage

Capacity

460 m3

Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion Mode

Total Primary Digester Volume 11 520 m3 (Digesters No. 2, 3, and 4)

Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion Mode

Total Thermophilic Digester Volume 1 620 m3

(Digester No. 2) Total Primary Digester Volume 9 900 m3

(Digesters No. 2, 3, and 4)

Table 9: Conceptual Level Design Requirements Dewatering Centrifuges and Biosolids Storage

Parameter Digestion Alternative 1

Digestion Alternative 2

New Centrifuges

Number 2 2

Capacity (each) 67 m3/hr 72 m3/hr

Capacity (total) 134 m3/hr 144 m3/hr

New Biosolids Storage Facility

Average Design Flow 35 m3/d 28 m3/d

Design Storage Requirement (180 days of Storage)

6 300 m3 5 040 m3



3.7 Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Digester Gas Utilization

This Technical Memorandum identified various options for digester gas system optimization,

and evaluated the alternative strategies for beneficial use of the gas produced.

Currently, digester gas is collected from each digester and sludge holding tank, compressed,

and injected back into the digester for mixing. In order to maintain a relatively constant pressure

in the tanks, excess gas is either routed to the boilers or to the waste gas flare. The gas is

treated for moisture and sediment removal by natural cooling and gravity, respectively. Much of

the equipment associated with the digestion process dates back to the digester construction in

the 1970s and is reaching the end of its service life. A Technical Standards & Safety Authority

(TSSA) inspection in 2009 suggested that an upgrade to existing open flare is required,

regardless of the preferred gas utilization option, to bring it into conformance with TSSA

requirements. The plant record shows that the gas quality is relatively stable and the hydrogen

sulfide concentration (630 ppm) is high when compared to the levels at Ravensview (6 ppm)

Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). It is recommended that the treatment of gas to remove

hydrogen sulfide be incorporated.

Several digester gas utilization options were evaluated including:

Option 1: Status Quo;

Option 2: Cogeneration (Including reciprocating engines, turbines, microturbines

and fuel cells);

Option 3: Directly-Driven Equipment; and

Option 4: Replace Boilers Only.

Options for the potential reciprocating engine based cogeneration were evaluated. Evaluation

criteria include actual or virtual revenue for electricity generation, increased availability and

minimum downtime for maintenance, a reliable source of thermal energy to the WWTP in order

to reduce the level of redundancy that may be required in the upgraded boiler plant, and

maximum flexibility for the potential range of digester gas production over the next service life

for the plant.

The preferred alternative design concept for digester gas utilization includes the following

elements (as shown in Figure 6):

Upgrade to the existing waste gas flare;

Replacement of the existing hydronic boilers and installation of new boilers; and



Potential implementation of cogeneration with Reciprocating Engines (To be

finalized during design phase). This option would involve two 177 KWe

cogeneration units.

Figure 6: Process Flow Schematic of Digester Gas Utilization at Cataraqui Bay WWTP

3.8 Technical Memorandum No. 7 – Odour Management

This Technical Memorandum specifically addressed an Odour Management Strategy for the

proposed plant expansion and considered existing processes, as well as upgrades to the

wastewater and biosolids treatment processes that could impact odours generated on site.

The plant has the advantage of a reasonable buffer distance from residential areas or sensitive

receptors such as hospitals, institutions, and/or public spaces, as shown in Figure 7. However, a

proactive approach of preventative measures for potential odours and treatment for known

odour sources is recommended. Recommendations include: ongoing housekeeping and

cleaning; documentation and investigation of complaints; in-house odour surveys to establish

approximate impact of varying conditions such as operation and/or weather dispersion modeling

during preliminary design phase to further quantify risks; provide odour treatment for exhaust

streams from the Headworks Building. If Headworks capacity must be expanded, investigate

improved grit removal and screenings handling; provide or make provision for odour treatment



for dewatered biosolids storage, and maintain the existing odour treatment system for septage

and activated sludge thickening.

Figure 7: Zoning Map Including the Cataraqui Bay WWTP and Surrounding Areas (Courtesy of City

of Kingston Official Plan)

3.9 Technical Memorandum No. 8 – Long Term Constraint Mapping

This Technical Memorandum was developed prior to the completion of the Technical

Memorandum No. 4 – Liquid Train Technology, to assist in determination of footprint of each

liquid train technology, which was employed in the score assignment for “Space Available for

Solids Train” criterion in the decision matrix. The concerns were raised during the EA that, due

to the limited space available onsite, the existing site property might not be sufficient for all

treatment infrastructure if Conventional Activated Sludge process was to be kept as the liquid



train technology for the plant’s next expansion. This Memorandum evaluated the footprint of the

applicable liquid train technologies and determined the ultimate treatment capacity of the

existing site for each treatment option. The technologies investigated include Conventional

Activated Sludge (CAS), Biological Aerated Filter (BAF), Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR),

and Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS). Several land parcels adjacent to the plant,

which are not currently owned by the city, were selected and evaluated to provide an

understanding of the plant capacity increase that can be gained through land acquisition.

It was found that the existing CAS process has the largest space requirement among all the

options investigated. The ultimate treatment capacity of the CAS process at the existing plant is

65 000 m3/d if a similar to existing site arrangement is chosen. This is less than the proposed

68 000 m3/d flow for the next expansion. For BAF, MBBR, and IFAS, the existing site is capable

of housing the treatment infrastructure for the next expansion without land acquisition.

3.10 Supporting Studies

3.10.1 Archaeological Assessment

During this Class EA, two Stage 1 Archaeological Assessments were completed. The first

assessment investigated the archaeological potential at the Cataraqui Bay WWTP. The second

assessment, which was carried out to support Technical Memorandum No. 8, evaluated the

archaeological potentials in the surrounding areas of the plant. Refer to Appendix B for the

complete reports.

The results from the Cataraqui Bay WWTP archaeological assessment suggested that because

of its location near the Little Cataraqui River and Lake Ontario shore, in its natural state the area

would have been considered to have a high archaeological potential. However, the site is now

fully developed with buildings, roads, and sewage infrastructures. It no longer retains any

archaeological site potential. No further archaeological investigation or testing is necessary.

The results from the archaeological assessment for the surrounding areas suggested that the

areas adjacent to Cataraqui Bay WWTP are considered to have archaeological potential, and a

Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment should be undertaken prior to any site development. It also

identified that there could be a possible soil contamination site from the nineteenth century

tannery complex located in the corner of Front Road and Sand Bay Lane.



3.10.2 Ecological Assessment

Similar to the Archaeological Assessments, two Ecological Assessments were completed for

this EA. The first assessment evaluated the ecological features at the Cataraqui Bay WWTP.

The second assessment evaluated the surrounding areas of the Cataraqui Bay WWTP. Refer to

Appendix C for the reports.

Since the WWTP has been fully developed, no natural heritage value was found. Although the

site is within 20 m of an impounded area of the Cataraqui Bay, and within 85 m of the Sand Bay

of Lake Ontario, a road surrounds the site, lying between it and the adjacent water bodies. Any

redevelopment in the existing site is not likely to have negative effect on the fish habitat

associated with Lake Ontario. It was recommended that best management practices be applied

to the on-site work to minimize the potential for disturbed sediments to escape site and affect

fish habitat.

The assessment of the areas surrounding the WWTP demonstrated a high degree of

anthropogenic-based disturbance and alternation, and all areas were predominantly cultural

landscapes. These land parcels show low to moderately low ecological values and no significant

heritage features. Some areas may be subject to the regulations of the Cataraqui Region

Conservation Authority, and an Environmental Impact Statement may be required if the

development is proposed within 120 m of Cataraqui Bay.

3.10.3 Geotechnical Assessment

A Desktop Geotechnical Assessment was completed that provided a general definition of soil

conditions and preliminary comments from the geotechnical engineering perspective at the

existing Cataraqui Bay WWTP and the surrounding areas for future expansions (Refer to

Appendix D). The results showed that the significant geotechnical concerns are not expected

for the parcels of land identified. A few geotechnical issues should be taken into consideration

during future field investigations, including:

Planning for potentially significant rock excavations, for deep structure

excavations;

Tunnelling methods for service connections below existing access and municipal

roads and rail lines;

Dewatering – excavation depth, time of the year, and location relative to the

adjacent Cataraqui Bay water body are factors in considering the dewatering

requirements. A Permit to Take Water, issued by the Ontario Ministry of



Environment, may also be required. Future investigations will need to include the

assessment of ground water and hydraulic properties of the soils;

Deep foundations to gain the benefit of high load carrying capacities of bedrock

versus shallow foundations on the overburdens;

Settlement assessments for shallow foundation options;

Seismic and liquefaction assessments of the sites;

Soil parameters for lateral earth pressures for static and dynamic conditions; and

Open cut excavation recommendations and geotechnical parameters for

temporary shoring.

3.10.4 Planning Considerations

The planning considerations are essential in an EA process to identify potential zoning and

planning complications as a result of proposed future development. A Memorandum was

completed for Cataraqui Bay WWTP which reviewed and examined the governing Zoning By-

Law and the City Official Plan in terms of zoning classifications in the immediate surrounding

lands and setback information for the site. The site conforms to both the City of Kingston Official

Plan and Zoning By-Law No. 76-26 for the former Township of Kingston. It was noted that any

development within the existing fence line would conform to the Official Plan and does not

require an Official Plan Amendment, since the site has been designated as “Waste

Management Industrial” for land use. The Zoning By-Law requires a further review once the site

layout is developed. Minor variance applications through the Committee of Adjustment may be

required. Refer to Appendix E.

4.0 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR THE PREFERRED SOLUTIONS (PHASE 3)

Phase 3 of the Class EA process is intended to identify alternative design concepts, evaluate

options, and determine the preferred concepts. This Section identifies and evaluates the various

design considerations for implementation of the preferred solution.

4.1 Conceptual Design

Figure 8 shows the process flow diagram for the future Cataraqui Bay WWTP.



Figure 8: Cataraqui Bay WWTP – Preliminary Process Flow

Diagram for Plant Expansion



4.2 Preliminary Site Layout

Figure 9 shows the conceptual level site layout for the proposed expansion at Cataraqui Bay

WWTP. The layout was developed to show the potential locations for various treatment

processes; this requires further investigation during the preliminary design phase. In developing

the future site configurations, efforts were given to maximize the use of the existing

infrastructure, while minimizing the footprint requirements for the treatment process.

A Value-Engineering cost-benefit-analysis is recommended during the preliminary design phase

to confirm the proposed layout. Many unit processes and auxiliary buildings may be re-arranged

at another location within the site property to offer better arrangement and easier access to site.

For example:

New Biosolids Storage Facility may be relocated to the existing Sludge Drying

Bed;

Sludge dewatering centrifuges may be relocated to the Digester Expansion Area.

The existing building may be used for other purposes;

Biological Aerated Filters may be relocated at existing aeration tanks;

Administration Building may be relocated to the new Biological Aerated Filters

area; and

Workshop and Dechlorination Building may be moved to another location to

provide more space for thickening/digester process.

Utilities Kingston should consider acquiring the land parcels located immediately to the north

and/or south of the WWTP. By obtaining the adjacent sites, the treatment capacity of the WWTP

can be increased, and access to site can potentially be improved as well. The option of land

acquisition should be further examined by Utilities Kingston before or during the preliminary

design phase.



Figure 9: Proposed Future Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Layout

Note:

Refer to Section 4.2 of the ESR for potential relocations of unit processes and auxiliary buildings.


J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited -32- JLR 24208-01

4.3 Opinion of Probable Cost

The following is an opinion of probable cost for the proposed upgrade, as of the date of this

report. It is not a prediction of the low tender price. Tendered prices will be influenced by

factors such as the tenderers’ methods of pricing and/or interpretations of their probable effort;

current or pending projects by others; and level of competitiveness in the market at the time of

tender, availability of labour, and materials, etc., which are not within our control, knowledge,

and/or ability to predict. The cost is presented in 2012 dollars.

The Capital Budget to upgrade and expand the existing plant to 68 000 m3/d is estimated at

$100 Million plus HST, expressed in 2012 dollars. This figure does include improvements

identified in the Condition Assessment of the facility. For comparison, the Ravensview WPCP,

constructed between 2007 and 2009, cost approximately $106 million for a flow of 95 000 m3/d

(or between $1100 and $1200 per cubic meter). The proposed work at Cataraqui Bay, in 2012

dollars, would cost between $1400 and $1500 per cubic meter. It should be noted that the total

BOD loading to Cataraqui Bay WWTP is anticipated to be higher than that of Ravensview,

despite a lower average day flow.

The rationale for the project is the result of three identified needs:

Improvements to existing infrastructure (as identified in the Condition

Assessment);

Enhanced treatment to improve effluent quality; and

Additional capacity to accommodate further growth in the City of Kingston.

The OPC for improvements to the existing plant, as identified in the Condition Assessment

report is estimated at $20 million. The cost for improvements for enhanced effluent quality and

to accommodate further growth is therefore estimated at approximately $80 million.



Table 10: Opinion of Probable Costs (All figures rounded)

Element Modification Proposed Cost

Liquid Train 1) Convert secondary clarifiers to primary clarifiers

2) Decommission CAS/Construct BAF/Construct Intermediate Pumping Station

3) Expand chlorination and dechlorination process

4) Modifications and upgrade to existing liquid train process units as necessary

$41 000 000

Solids Train 1) Modify digester feed system

2) Expand anaerobic digestion capacity

3) Introduce a side stream process

4) Expand centrifuge capacity

5) Construct biosolids storage facility

6) Modifications and upgrade to existing solids train process units as necessary

$23 000 000

Digester Gas Utilization

1) Upgrade boilers and heating system

2) Upgrade waste flare system

3) Upgrade gas treatment system

4) Construct co-generation set (optional)

$3 000 000

Odour Management 1) Construct new odour treatment units

2) Modifications and upgrade to existing odour management strategies

$500 000

General Site Works 1) Civil site works

2) Electrical site works (incl. new substation, generators, lightings and etc.)

3) Site communication

4) SCADA

$4 000 000

SUBTOTAL $71 500 000

GENERAL

Construction Phasing and Commissioning 1% $700 000

Permits 1% $700 000

General Contractor’s Fees 12% $7 000 000

TOTAL – OPINION OF PROBABLE COST (CONSTRUCTION)

$80 000 000

Project Management, Engineering and Contingency 25% $20 000 000

TOTAL – OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

(Excl. HST)

$100 000 000



5.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Construction and operation of the proposed works will lead to potential impacts, both positive

and negative, upon the natural, social, and economic environments. The following sections

summarize these potential impacts and present mitigating measures that are proposed to

reduce any significant impacts.

Table 11 provides a summary of the potential impacts from the Cataraqui Bay WWTP and the

corresponding mitigation measures.



Table 11: Potential Effects Caused by Proposed Works and Proposed Mitigation Measures

Potential Effects

No

t P

rob

able

Pro

bab

le

Eff

ect

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: loss of home/business

U U

U U

+tive -tive

Increased treatment capacity at the plant, and cleaner effluent discharge into Lake Ontario. Dust control measures to be implemented during construction, equipment will have proper exhaust system to reduce noise emissions, 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. The expansion will occur within the existing fence line. There are no residential or commercial establishments in the adjacent area.

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 -tive

Vegetation to be maintained is to be protected during construction; measures include sediment and erosion controls. The site is of close proximity to Lake Ontario and Little Cataraqui Creek. The construction activities should be maintained within the existing fence line to minimize disruption to wildlife habitat.

None anticipated with mitigation proposed.

HERITAGE RESOURCES disruption and/or destruction of sites, structures, or cultural heritage

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

U



Potential Effects

No

t P

rob

able

Pro

bab

le

Eff

ect

Mitigation Measures

Net Effects

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

-tive -tive

A camp is located to the south of the site. Construction activities will be scheduled to occur during weekdays in daytime only in summer months to minimize interruption to the campers. Dust and noise control measures will also be implemented during construction. The plant and the camp share a common access road. Increased car and truck traffic is to be found during construction.

Minimized and mitigated to the extent possible. Minimized and mitigated to the extent possible.

AESTHETICS effects on removal of vegetation/cultural elements changing of compatibility with surroundings adjacent residents exposed to new view

U U

U

+tive

An enclosed biosolids storage facility will replace the existing open storage pad. The odour will be contained and treated.

COMMUNITY EFFECTS change in tax base (loss/gain of business) change to water rates to implement the wastewater facility change to impost rates to recover cost for the expansion effects on quality of life

U U U

U

+tive

The expansion will increase the treatment capacity and improve the effluent quality to Lake Ontario.

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, and construction activities to take place during time periods stipulated in the local Noise By-law.

Potential impact mitigated to acceptable level.

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

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.

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

GROUNDWATER quantity, quality, and interference with flows and levels

U



Potential Effects

No

t P

rob

able

Pro

bab

le

Eff

ect

Mitigation Measures

Net Effects

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

affected area change in air quality through addition or removal of particulates,

gases, odours

U

U

+tive

The existing sludge open storage pad will be replaced with an enclosed storage facility. Odour will be collected and treated in the new facility, resulting in better air quality in the surrounding area.

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

-tive

Mitigation measures will take place to restore the removed vegetation after construction. Construction will be phased to maintain normal operation of the plant. Mitigation measures will be taken to ensure minimal impacts. Construction will take place during non-spawning and breading periods.

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

TRAFFIC effect of traffic during construction effect of traffic after construction

U

U

-tive

Increased car and truck traffic at the access road to the plant.

Potential impact is unavoidable.



6.0 CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

Effective consultation is key to successful environmental assessment planning. Through an

effective consultation program, the proponent can generate meaningful dialogue between

project planners and stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the public, stakeholder agencies,

and interest groups. The level of consultation largely depends on the problem or opportunity

being addressed, the level of complexity, potential environmental issues and impacts, and

specific similar studies in the community. For this Class EA, project consultation was

accomplished through internal and external consultation methods. A formal consultation process

has been documented throughout this Class EA. Refer to Appendix F of this ESR for

documented consultation activities. The following Sections summarize the consultation activities

occurred after the Sewer Master Plan.

6.1 Stakeholder and Review Agency Consultation

A Notice of Study Commencement was published in Kingston Whig-Standard and on Utilities

Kingston’s website. The notice was also distributed to mandatory contacts that a Class EA has

been initiated. A project mailing list was developed identifying stakeholders that require full

documentation, partial documentation, and other parties that either declined participation unless

the projects scope changes to affect their respective agency, declined participation, or provided

no response. The project mailing list was updated throughout this Class EA. Refer to Appendix

F for a copy of the mailing list.

6.2 Project Committee and Consultation Meetings

To facilitate the consultation process and consider feedback from interested parties, the project

team met on a regular basis to discuss specific concerns. Table 12 provides a summary of

relevant meetings and workshops that took place with the project team throughout this Class

EA.

Two (2) Public Information Centres (PICs) were held for this Class EA, which included informal

discussions and viewing of information boards on the project. In advance of each PIC, notices

were placed in the Kingston Whig-Standard and posted on Utilities Kingston’s project website. A

direct mailing was also sent to individuals on the project mailing list.



Table 12: Summary of Critical Consultation Meetings and Workshops

Meeting / Date Comments

Project Initiation Meeting

March 20, 2010

Help to establish the ground work for the initial stages of this Class EA project.

MOE Pre- Consultation Meeting

November 18, 2010

Held to provide MOE with some background to the Class EA project.

Operator Workshop

June 28, 2012

Held to discuss viable treatment technologies, complete the liquid train technology decision matrix, and select the preferred liquid train and solids train technologies.

Public Information Centre No. 1

July 12, 2012

Held to present the preferred liquid train and solids train technologies and supporting studies.

Project Team Meeting

August 24, 2012

Held to discuss the BAF backwash residual thickening options, on-site pumping station expansion opportunities, and project schedules.

Public Information Centre No. 2

August 30, 2012

Held to present the preferred digester gas utilization technology, and preliminary site layout.

7.0 NEXT STEPS

This Environmental Study Report documents the Schedule C Class EA undertaken for the

proposed expansion at the Cataraqui Bay WWTP. The recommended undertaking involves

expanding the plant liquid train process using Biological Aerated Filters (BAF) and solids train

process with Anaerobic Digestion and an Enclosed Biosolids Cake Storage Facility. The

digester gas produced will be utilized by boilers for heating, when required, or wasted by flare. It

is also recommended that the opportunity to implement a cogeneration facility be further

investigated during the preliminary design phase.

The Class EA process requires that this ESR be placed on Public Record for 30 calendar days

for review by the public, stakeholder agencies, and other interested parties. A notice indicating

completion of the ESR and its filing on Public Record must be issued to the public and all

interested parties that have previously been contacted and that have indicated a desire to stay

involved in the planning of the undertaking. The review period is intended to resolve any

outstanding concerns regarding the project between the Municipality and the party expressing

the concern. If issues cannot be resolved with the Municipality, a party may request that the

Minister of the Environment order the proponent to comply with Part II of the EA Act, which

addresses individual Environmental Assessments, by submitting a written request to:



Minister of the Environment

135 St. Clair Avenue West, 10th Floor

Toronto, ON M4V 1P5

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. Anyone who has concerns about

this project should provide written comments to:

Chantal Chiddle, P.Eng., Utilities Engineer

Utilities Kingston

85 Lappan’s Lane, P.O. Box 790

Kingston, ON K7L 4X7

The project can proceed through design and construction after the 30-calendar day review

period if no Part II Order requests are received.

Any information collected during the review period will be managed in accordance with the

Freedom of Information and Protection Act. With the exception of personal information, all

comments become part of the Public Record. Proprietary information (i.e. equipment

manufacturers) and pricing could provide competitors with some advantage and will not be

released (in detail) as part of the Freedom of Information and Protection Act.

cataraqui bay schedule c class … bay wwtp esr... · cataraqui bay wastewater treatment plant...

Documents