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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - ES 1 - JLR 24208-01
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - ES 2 - 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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - ES 3 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 2 - JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 3 - JLR 24208-01
Figure 3: Cataraqui Bay WWTP Process Flow Diagram
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 4 - JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 5 - JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 6 - JLR 24208-01
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).
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 7 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 8 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 9 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 10 - JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 11 - JLR 24208-01
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)
Maximum Month (kg/d)
15 040
24 064
TKN Loading
Average (kg/d)
Maximum Month (kg/d)
2 230
3 345
TP Loading
Average (kg/d)
Maximum Month (kg/d)
360
540
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 12 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 13 - JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 14 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 15 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 16 - JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 17 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 18 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 19 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 20 - JLR 24208-01
Figure 4: Process Flow Schematic – Alternative 1 – Expansion of Anaerobic Digestion
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 21 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 22 - JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 23 - JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 24 - JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 25 - JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 26 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 27 - JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 28 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 29 - JLR 24208-01
Figure 8: Cataraqui Bay WWTP – Preliminary Process Flow
Diagram for Plant Expansion
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 30 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited - 31 - JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited -33- JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited -34- JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited -35- JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited -36- JLR 24208-01
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
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited -37- JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited -38- JLR 24208-01
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.
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited -39- JLR 24208-01
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:
Utilities Kingston Cataraqui Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Environmental Study Report
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 16, 2012 XCG Consultants Limited -40- JLR 24208-01
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.