Island Water Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion - Project File Report

REPORT
City of Toronto
Island Water Filtration Plant
Project File
July 2014

CONFIDENTIALITY AND © COPYRIGHT
This document is for the sole use of the addressee and Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd. The document contains proprietary and confidential
information that shall not be reproduced in any manner or disclosed to or discussed with any other parties without the express written
permission of Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd. Information in this document is to be considered the intellectual property of Associated
Engineering (Ont.) Ltd. in accordance with Canadian copyright law.
This report was prepared by Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd. for the account of City of Toronto. The material in it reflects Associated
Engineering (Ont.) Ltd.’s best judgement, in the light of the information available to it, at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party
makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Associated Engineering
(Ont.) Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this
report.

REPORT
i
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
Table of Contents i
List of Tables ii
List of Figures iii
1 Introduction 1
2 Study Objective 1
3 Existing Conditions 1
4 Alternative Solutions 2
5 Development and Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts 3
5.1 Do Nothing 3
5.2 Construct Additional Treatment Infrastructure 3
5.3 Maximize Production Capacity of Existing Treatment Infrastructure 3
6 Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives 7
7 Preferred Design Concept 9
8 Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigating Measures 9
9 Public, Agency, Stakeholders, and Aboriginal Consultation 9
9.1 Notice of Commencement 9
9.2 Notice of Completion 10
9.3 Project Website 10
9.4 Stakeholders and Review Agencies 10
9.5 Aboriginal Communities and Representatives 11
9.6 Consultation Process Comments and Responses 11
Appendix A – Process Flow Diagram
Appendix B - Notice of Commencement
Appendix C - Notice of Completion
Appendix D - Consultation Comments and Responses

City of Toronto
ii
c:users50200eedesktopproject20135598 cot island wtp process capacity assessmentrpt_cot_project_file_20140710.docx
List of Tables
PAGE NO.
Table 6-1 Evaluation Matrix 8
Table 8-1 Mitigating Measures 9

List of Figures
iii
List of Figures
PAGE NO.
Figure 5-1 Island WFP, Existing Intakes, Capacity vs. Headloss 4

REPORT
1
1 Introduction
Toronto Water provides potable water to the residents, businesses and visitors of the City of Toronto and
parts of York Region by treating Lake Ontario water at four (4) Water Treatment Plants (WTPs):
R.C. Harris WTP, 950 MLD rated capacity;
F.J. Horgan WTP, 800 MLD rated capacity;
R.L. Clark WTP, 615 MLD rated capacity;
Island WTP, 410 MLD rated capacity.
The original Island WTP was constructed in early 1900’s and employed slow sand filtration process. The
current version of the plant was commissioned in 1977. The plant operates in a direct filtration
configuration and the treatment processes comprise flocculation of raw water with the aid of coagulant,
filtration through multi-media granular gravity filters and disinfection with chlorine. Additionally, ammonia is
introduced at the end of the treatment process to maintain a more persistent chlorine residual into the City’s
water distribution network.
In addition to providing potable water, the cold temperature from the Island WTP’s treated water is also
used through a partnership with Enwave District Energy Limited in their Deep Lake Water Cooling (DLWC)
system, which provides district air conditioning for numerous commercial buildings in the downtown core.
The Island WTP operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
The plant is located on Toronto Island and, due to such a location, is accessible only be regular ferry
service or other marine transportation means.
2 Study Objective
The City of Toronto has undertaken this project to evaluate options for expanding the rated capacity of the
Island WTP from 410 MLD to 450 MLD. Such an expansion would offer the City greater operational
flexibility in terms of the ability to supplement reduced production from other water treatment facilities due to
servicing requirements with increased production from the Island WTP.
The expansion would also improve the ability of the City and the Island WTP to sustain peak production
flows.
3 Existing Conditions
The existing water treatment processes are depicted in the Process Flow Diagram (Dwg, PFD002) in
Appendix A and are as follows:
Raw water is withdrawn from Lake Ontario via three (3) intake pipes, 1,600 mm diameter,
approximately 5.4 km long each;
Three (3) travelling water screens, approximately 1,800 mm wide each, remove debris from raw water
and allow screened raw water to enter the Raw Water Pump Well. The hydraulic capacity of each

City of Toronto
2
screen is estimated to be 181.6 MLD (40 MIGD) for a total installed capacity of 544.8 MLD; The
screens are cleaned periodically by water jets that deposit debris in the trash channel for disposal;
Raw water pumps lift raw water from the Pump Well and discharge to the flume that leads to the Filter
Building. There are five (5) raw water pumps at the plant, four (4) fixed speed pumps (P1, P2, P4 and
P5) are rated to deliver 114.0 MLD each while variable speed pump P3 is rated to deliver 120.0 MLD;
Firm capacity of the Raw Water Pumping Station is 456.0 MLD while total installed capacity is 576.0
MLD;
Coagulant (polyaluminum chloride) is injected into the raw water stream and rapid flocculation takes
place at the hydraulic jump of the flowmeter inside the flume;
A total of six(6) multi-media granular gravity filters, approximately 15.5 x 12.8 m in plan dimension each,
remove pin floc and other impurities from raw water. Each filter is equipped with a 750 mm diameter
Venturi flowmeter and a 600 mm diameter butterfly flow control valve; The filters are currently
undergoing modernization with provision of air scour system which will be employed in combination with
backwash to provide better filter media cleaning;
Two (2) backwash water pumps, each rated to deliver 2,270 L/s flow, provide backwash water for
cleaning the filters
Filtered water is discharged into two (2) clearwells located under the filters. Each clearwell is
approximately 39.2 m long by 15.4 m wide with a water depth of approximately 2.8 m for a total volume
of approximately 3,381 m
3
;
Clearwells are connected by a 2,250 mm diameter conduit which discharges filtered water to the Water
Storage Reservoir;
The 2-cell Reservoir has a total volume of approximately 34,000 m
3
and is equipped with serpentine
separation walls to ensure plug flow;
Disinfectant (gaseous chlorine) is introduced upstream of the clearwells. There are also two (2) other
locations for injecting chlorine – upstream of the travelling screens and at the entrance to the
Reservoir’s outlet channel – which are used on ‘as required’ basis;
De-chlorination agent (sulphur dioxide solution) is applied at the entrance to the Reservoir’s outlet
channel in order to control the maximum free chlorine concentration of the water;
Aqueous ammonia is applied to water in the reservoir outlet channel to form chloramines;
Hydrofluorosolicic acid is fed to the clearwells to enhance fluoride content for dental health reasons.
4 Alternative Solutions
The list of alternative solutions available is as follows:
1. Do nothing;
2. Design and construct additional treatment infrastructure at the Island WTP;
3. Maximize the production capacity and treatment performance of the existing infrastructure at the Island
WTP.

Report
3
5 Development and Evaluation of Alternative Design
Concepts
The following section review and evaluate the plant capacity expansion alternatives identified in Section 3.
5.1 DO NOTHING
As implied, the “do nothing” alternative does not provide the solution to the problem statement since it does
not offer the required plant capacity increase.
5.2 CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL TREATMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
It is theoretically possible to construct a plant expansion as required to increase the capacity. Such an
expansion would consist of all the treatment processes already employed at the plant in a parallel stream
configuration. The negative aspects of expanding the treatment infrastructure at the Island WTP are as
follows:
Toronto Island is a major year-round recreational facility for the general public;
Constructing an expansion of the plant could require acquisition of additional lands which would reduce
significantly the lands available for public use;
Major construction activity will impact the permanent residents of the Island;
Construction activity in general on the Island are prone to be costlier than the same at off-island
locations and are subject to delays due to limited accessibility of the Island – all the supplies, equipment
and materials would have to be transported by public ferries, which require precise scheduling or
dedicated marine transportation;
5.3 MAXIMIZE PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF EXISTING TREATMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
The ideal solution to the problem statement would be the optimization of the process and maximizing the
performance of various systems, equipment and processes at the existing Island WTP so that additional
capacity would be available without the need to construct additional facilities. In order to ensure the
production of the existing plant can be increased to the desired level, a theoretical review of each treatment
process was undertaken and the results were verified through a short-term stress test of the facility. The
stress test was conducted on June 11, 2013, when the plant production was ramped up gradually with an
almost 478.0 MLD maximum production (filtration) rate recorded. The results of theoretical evaluation of
the individual processes as well as the results of the stress test undertaken are summarized in the following
sections.
In the following discussions, it was assumed that for the net plant production capacity of 450 MLD the
required capacity of raw water systems up to and including gravity filters would be 450 MLD x 1.03 = 463.5
MLD, i.e. it assumes 3% water usage for filter backwashing and other in-plant uses.
5.3.1 Intakes
The original raw water intakes have been replaced with new intakes as part of the Deep Lake Water
Cooling project. The new intakes extend further out (5.4 km) from the shoreline and terminate much deeper
(83m). The current intake system comprises three (3) intake pipes with a nominal diameter of 1,600 mm

City of Toronto
4
(63”). Once on shore, the intake pipe pass the existing valve chamber and then discharge into the existing
2,250 mm diameter pipe installed during original plant construction.
Based on conversations with the original intake designer, the total hydraulic capacity of the intake system is
slightly higher than 414.0 MLD (91.0 MIGD). Following original installation, the intake was hydraulically
tested and exhibited combined C-factor, a coefficient related to friction headlosses within the pipe,
exceeding 150.
The calculations of the theoretical capacity of the intake system in terms of flow vs. headloss are presented
graphically on Figure 5-1. Assuming a more conservative value of C = 140 representing the current
condition of the intakes, the overall headloss is approximately 3.3 m at the design capacity of 414.0 MLD,
3.4 m at the current plant rating of 410.0 MLD and 4.0 m at the proposed plant rating of 450.0 MLD.
According to the Government of Canada’s Hydrographic Services, for the period from 1966 to 2012 the
mean monthly water levels in Lake Ontario fluctuated between approximately 74.3 m and 75.6 m. The
mean 10-years December lake water level is 74.54 m while the mean 10-years June lake water level is
75.04 m. There were larger water level fluctuations prior to year 1965 (down to approximately 73.8 m), but
the lake water levels are better controlled now. Hence, we have used a mean Lake Ontario water level
elevation of 74.54 m for further calculations.
The minimum submergence requirement of the raw water pumps according to the supplier’s information is
2.496 m including a margin for safety. With the pump well bottom slab of the Raw Water Pumping Station
set at elevation of 67.97 m the minimum allowable water level elevation in the pump well is 67.97 + 2.496 =
70.466 m. On the other hand, the minimum water level expected in the pump well assuming intake
headloss of 4.0 m and maximum headloss through the travelling water screens of 0.10 m, is 74.54 – 4.0 -
0.010 = 74.44 m. Hence, for all the practical purposes the minimum water level expected in the pump well
of the Raw Water Pumping Station at the expanded flow of 463.5 MLD, which corresponds to the net plant
capacity of 450.0 MLD, matches the allowable minimum water level based on the characteristics of the
existing pumps.
Figure 5-1
Island WFP, Existing Intakes, Capacity vs. Headloss

Report
5
5.3.2 Travelling Screens
The total installed capacity of the three (3) existing travelling screens is approximately 544.8 MLD, which
exceeds the required raw water flow rate. However, the firm capacity is only 363.2 MLD and this means
that the plant will not be able to operate at the desired high output when any one of the travelling screens is
out of service.
The amount of debris collected by the travelling screens currently is very minor and although increased
throughput will result in increased debris collection, the amount expected is insignificant and is not expected
to affect overall performance of the screens.
5.3.3 Raw Water Pumping
The rated capacities of the five (5) existing raw water pumps are as follows:
P1 – 114 MLD;
P2 – 114 MLD;
P3 – 120 MLD;
P4 – 114 MLD;
P5 – 114 MLD.
The recently installed pump P3 is equipped with variable speed controller while the rest of the pumps are
fixed speed.
Hence, the total capacity of the existing raw water pumps is 576 MLD and the firm capacity is 456 MLD
which is just under the anticipated maximum raw water flow but exceeds the net plant capacity.
5.3.4 Filters
The existing six (6) multi-media gravity filters have an approximate active filtration area of 151.9 m
2
each.
With all the filters in service, the actual filtration rate would be 18.75 m/hr at a 410 ML/d rating and 20.57
m/hr at a 450 ML/d rating or 19.31 m/hr and 21.19 m/hr at the corresponding gross production rates of
422.3 MLD and 463.5 MLD respectively. All of these filtration rates are within the ranges acceptable for
direct filtration by multi-media gravity filters.
During the plant stress test, the quality of filtered water, as measured by turbidity, was not affected much by
the increase of the filtration rate. The filtrate turbidity, which represents filtrate quality, did not fluctuate
much at various filtration rates – from a minimum of 0.04 NTU to a maximum of 0.11 NTU with an average
value of 0.05 NTU. Note that the maximum turbidity value was not observed during the highest plant flow
and, as such, could be attributed to a minor process upset not linked to increased filtration rate. The
observed values during the plant stress test were below the critical control limit for individual filter turbidity
of 0.3 NTU.
However, as was anticipated, the filter headlosses increased with increased filtration rates – from an
average of 0.72 m at 300 MLD plant flow to an average of 1.22 m at 450 MLD. It is difficult to predict how
the increase in flow rate would affect the filter run-time between backwashes without proper field testing.
However, we believe that since the average filter headloss increased from 0.84 m at 348 ML/d flow rate to
1.22 m at 450 ML/d flow rate (a 45% increase), the filter run-time between backwashes could be reduced

City of Toronto
6
by a factor of 2 (i.e. if the current run-time is 120 hours the modified run-time would be only 60 hours). More
frequent backwashes or a re-optimized backwash strategy would be required to manage this increase in
filter headloss and potential imminent turbidity breakthrough when operating at the higher production rate.
In general, it can be concluded that the performance of the water treatment train was satisfactory during the
stress test with average filter flows up to 451 ML/d and instantaneous peak flows of up to 478 ML/d. Based
on the review of filtrate turbidity and filter headloss values, it appears that the increased filtration rate would
not affect adversely performance of the existing filters. However, more frequent backwashes may be
required.
5.3.5 Clearwells
The performance of the existing clearwells is not expected to be affected by the increased plant production
rate as they are used mostly for transferring filtered water to the reservoir and as a source water for filter
backwash pumps.
5.3.6 Reservoir
During recent plant tests, the City staff recalculated the total volume of the Reservoir and conducted tracer
studies to determine the actual baffle factor. Based on these tests, the actual volume of the Reservoir was
determined to be 36,679 m
3
with water depth of 4.1 m. The tracer test indicated that the actual baffle factor
of the reservoir is approximately 0.96, but recommendations were made to assume the baffling factor to be
0.90 to ensure factor of safety.
Currently, the City is required to achieve a minimum of 1.0-log inactivation of Giardia through disinfection.
Based on the MOE parameters, in order to achieve 1.0-log Giardia inactivation, the reservoir is required to
produce a CT value of approximately 104 mg/L-min (0.5ºC water temperature, pH=8.0).
The City’s target currently is to maintain a minimum of 1.4 mg/L free chlorine residual at the exit from the
reservoir. At the plant’s current rated capacity of 410 MLD or 284.7 m
3
/min, chlorine contact time and CT
value are estimated to be
T = 36,679 / 284.7 / 0.90 = 143.1 min
CT = 143.1 x 1.4 = 200.4 mg/L-min
The current actual CT value exceeds the required CT value.
At the plant’s expanded rated capacity of 450 MLD or 312.5 m3
/min, chlorine contact time and CT value will
be
T = 36,679 / 312.5 / 0.90 = 130.4 min
CT = 130.4 x 1.4 = 182.6 mg/L-min
Hence, when the plant production is increased to 450 MLD, the required CT value will also be met and
exceeded.
As part of a future potential optimization initiative, the City is considering targeting a minimum of 1.1 mg/L
free chlorine residual at the exit from the reservoir. At the plant’s current rated capacity of 410 MLD or
284.7 m3
/min, chlorine contact time and CT value are estimated to be

Report
7
T = 36,679 / 284.7 / 0.90 = 143.1 min
CT = 143.1 x 1.1 = 157.5 mg/L-min
The future potential optimized CT value at the current rate capacity exceeds the required CT value.
At the plant’s expanded rated capacity of 450 MLD or 312.5 m3
/min, chlorine contact time and CT value will
be
T = 36,679 / 312.5 / 0.90 = 130.4 min
CT = 130.4 x 1.1 = 143.5 mg/L-min
Hence, when the plant production is increased to 450 MLD. the required CT value will also be met and
exceeded at the future potential optimized minimum 1.1 mg/L free chlorine residual.
5.3.7 Treated Water Conduit to John Street Pumping Station
The performance of the potable water conduit from the reservoir to the John Street Pumping Station is
difficult to predict since it’s actual condition is not known. However, during plant stress test, the flow in the
conduit was increased for a short period of time up to a maximum of 430.77 MLD with no noticeable issues.
5.3.8 Conclusions
Based on the evaluation of the existing individual water treatment processes at the Island WTP it appears
that water production at the plant can safely be maximized to the desired production goal of 450 MLD (net).
6 Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives
Table 6-1 below provides evaluation matrix for the alternatives identified. Numerous key indicators, like
“Property Availability”, “Aesthetic Impact”, “Constructability” as well as impact on operations and
maintenance were used for evaluation of proposed alternatives.
Based on the evaluation presented, the preferred solution is Alternative 3 which involves maximization of
the existing processes and equipment without any additional construction activity.

City of Toronto
8
Table 6-1
Evaluation Matrix
Alternative Ranking Least Impact/Most Preferred Neutral Most Impact/Least Preferred
Description
Addressing Problem Statement
Expand rated capacity of the
Island WFP from 410.0 MLD to
450.0MLD
Does not address Problem
Statement
Provides required increase in
plant capacity
Provides required increase in
plant capacity
Site Requirements, Constructability and Cost
Potential Expansion Property
Availability
Property purchase not
required.
Surrounding area is used as
recreational facility for general
public
Property purchase not required.
Aesthetic Impact
No change to current
aesthetics of site.
Minor - new facilities can be
constructed to match the style
of the current facilities
No change to current aesthetics
of site.
Constructability
No infrastructure to be
constructed for this
alternative.
Difficult - construction activities
on the Island are prone to be
more difficult and are subject to
continuous delays due to
limited accessibility of the
Island
No infrastructure to be
constructed for this alternative.
Construction Cost
No construction cost
incurred.
High - Excessive costs
attributable to limited
accessibility of the Island
No construction cost incurred.
Operation and Maintenance Impacts
Facility/System Operation No change in operation
Poor - Operation of expanded
plant may require the use of
additional operations stuff due
to wider spread of treatment
facilities on the site
Good - No change in operation
requirements is expected
Maintenance No change in maintenance.
Poor - Additional facilities
typically mean increased level
of maintenance due to
increased number of equipment
and facilities
Good - Minor increase in
maintenance requirements is
expected due to equipment and
processes operating at higher
rates
Overall Score
Alternative 2 - Provide
Additional Treatment
Infrastructure
Alternative 3 - Maximize
Production Capacity of
Existing Treatment
Infrastructure
Design and Construct additional
treatment facilities and/or processes
to achieve the desired expansion in
plant's rated capacity
Maximize the production capacity and
treatment performance of the existing
treatment infrastructure at the Plant
Alternative 1 - Do Nothing
Leave the existing facilities 'as is'

Report
9
7 Preferred Design Concept
The preferred solution does require any additional features or facilities. The plant production can be
expanded using all the existing equipment and treatment processes by maximization of equipment usage
and optimization of the existing processes.
8 Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigating
Measures
The potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the preferred solution are listed in
the following table along with the suitable mitigating measures.
Table 8-1
Mitigating Measures
Environmental Indicator Recommended Mitigation
Proximity to sensitive land uses
The Island is used for recreational activities by the general
public.
No special mitigating measures are required
since most of the work will be done within the
existing Plant.
Vehicle/Pedestrian Traffic Access
Increase in plant treatment capacity will increase the
frequency of treatment chemical deliveries
Since the plant’s capacity expansion is minor,
less than 10% of current capacity, the impact of
such an increase is expected to be minor.
Better scheduling of chemical deliveries with the
ferry traffic will be undertaken.
Local emergency services will be consulted as
appropriate.
9 Public, Agency, Stakeholders, and Aboriginal
Consultation
9.1 NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT
A Notice of Commencement and Invitation to Comment for this study was published in The Grid on June 19
and 26, 2014 and distributed to all residents of Toronto Islands. Responses were requested to be submitted
by July 4, 2014.
As well, a copy of the Notice of Commencement with cover letter was sent to the stakeholders and review
agencies listed in Section 9.4 as well as the aboriginal communities and representatives listed in Section
9.5.
An example of the Notice of Commencement is included in Appendix B.

City of Toronto
10
9.2 NOTICE OF COMPLETION
A Notice of Completion was published in NOW Magazine on July 10 and 17, 2014 and distributed to all
residents of Toronto Islands. As well, a copy of the Notice of Completion with cover letter was sent to the
stakeholders and review agencies listed in Section 9.4 as well as the aboriginal communities and
representatives listed in Section 9.5.
An example of the Notice of Completion is included in Appendix C.
9.3 PROJECT WEBSITE
Background information was available for review on a project website (www.toronto.ca/islandtp) as noted
on the various communication through the consultation process.
9.4 STAKEHOLDERS AND REVIEW AGENCIES
The following review agencies have been contacted for their input on this study:
Local Organizations
Alexandra Yacht Club
Algonquin Island Association
Artscape Gibraltar Point
Friends of Toronto Islands
Island Yacht Club
Queen City Yacht Club
Rectory Café
Royal Canadian Yacht Club
Sunfish Cut Boat Club
The National Yacht Club
Toronto Island Canoe Club
Toronto Island Marina
Toronto Island Residential Community Trust
Toronto Island Sailing Club
Toronto Islands Community Association
Ward’s Island Recreation Association
Agencies
Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport
Conservation Ontario
Environment Canada, Great Lakes and Coporate Affairs
Ministry of Natural Resources
Ministry of the Environment
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Toronto Port Authority
Utilities
Allstream
Bell Canada
CN Rail

Report
11
Cogeco Data Services Inc.
CP Rail
Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.
Enbridge Pipeline Inc.
Enwave Energy Corporation
Hydro One Networks Inc
Hydrostor
Imperial Oil
Ontario Provincial Police
Prestige Telecom
Rogers Cable Systems
Sun-Canadian Pipe Line Company Ltd.
Telus
Tera Span
Toronto Hydro
City Divisions and Agencies
City Planning
Parks, Forestry and Recreation
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Toronto EMS
Toronto Fire
Toronto Public Health
Toronto Water
9.5 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES AND REPRESENTATIVES
The following review aboriginal communities and representatives have been contacted for their input on this
study:
Aboriginal Communities and Representatives
Alderville First Nation
Curve Lake First Nation
Hiawatha First Nation (Mississauga of Rice Lake)
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation
Williams Treaty First Nations Co-ordinator
9.6 CONSULTATION PROCESS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
All comments received from the Notice of Commencement distribution and responses provided as part of
this consultation process are provided in Appendix D.
Based on the comments received and responses provided, the City will proceed with the implementation of
the preferred design concept.

REPORT
A-1
Appendix A – Process Flow Diagram

Process Flow Diagram
1
Raw
Water
2 3
Filters
Chlorine
To Lake Ontario
Sewer System
4
5 6
1 Intake
Screen Chamber
Low Lift Station
Filters
Clear Well
Reservoir
Residual Management Facility
2
3
4
5
6
7
Lake
Ontario
Polyaluminum
Chloride
Distribution System
Ammonia
Chlorine
Fluoride
Air Blower
Backwash Pump
Backwash Water
Settling Basins
Ashbridges Bay
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Sodium
Bisulphite
7
CONTRACT No.DRAFTING:
SCALE:
DATE:
DESIGN: CHECK:
NUMBER:
DRAWING
SIGNEDINITIALREVISIONSDATENo.
ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
DIRECTOR,
FRANK CLARIZIO, P. ENG.
CAPITAL WORKS DELIVERYWATER TREATMENT AND SUPPLY
LARRY KORSON, P. ENG.
ACTING DIRECTOR,
Water
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
DIAGRAM
PFD_002 001
N.T.S.
MAY 2014
E.E. N.B. E.E.
0 FEB. 2014 N.B.ISSUED FOR TENDER
Removed off-
site via land

REPORT
B-1
Appendix B - Notice of Commencement

Study Overview
The City ofToronto will be investigating options for increasing the capacity of the
Island WaterTreatment Plant, located on the south side ofToronto Islands.
The City requires more operational flexibility both at the Island WaterTreatment
Plant to sustain peak production flows, as well as in the larger water supply system
to balance supply with demand.To achieve this, we plan to increase the processing
capacity of the Island WaterTreatment Plant from 410 ML/day to 450 ML/day.
Information about this project is available on the City’s website at: toronto.ca/islandtp
Information includes:
• Opportunity
• Alternative solutions
• Evaluation of alternative solutions
We would like to hear from you
We invite you to review the material provided online and provide any comments
you have by July 4, 2014. Comments or questions should be directed to:
Mike Logan
Senior Public Consultation Coordinator
City ofToronto
Metro Hall, 19th Fl.
55 John St.
Toronto, ON M5V 3C6
Tel: 416-392-4360
Fax: 416-392-2974
TTY: 416-338-0889
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
Information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments
will become part of the public record.
Island WaterTreatment Plant Capacity Increase Study
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Notice of Study Commencement and Invitation to Comment

REPORT
C-1
Appendix C - Notice of Completion

The City ofToronto has completed an investigation of options for increasing the capacity of the Island Water
Treatment Plant, located on the south side ofToronto Islands.The study has determined that the preferred
solution is to maximize the production capacity and treatment performance of the existing infrastructure at
the Island WaterTreatment Plant to increase its capacity from 410 ML/d to 450 ML/d.
Opportunities for Review
A Project File Report documenting the environmental assessment study has been completed and has been
placed on public record for a 30-day review period starting July 10, 2014 and ending August 8, 2014. It is
available for review online at: toronto.ca/islandtp.
If you have any outstanding issues about this project, please address them to the City staff listed below
and we will attempt to seek a mutually acceptable resolution.
Mike Logan
Senior Public Consultation Coordinator
City ofToronto
Metro Hall, 19th Fl., 55 John St.
Toronto, ON M5V 3C6
If concerns regarding this project cannot be resolved in discussion with the City ofToronto, a person or
party may request that the Minister of the Environment make an order for the project to comply with
Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order), which addresses individual
environmental assessments.
The Minister must receive the request in writing by August 8, 2014 at the address below, and a copy must
be sent to the City contact. If no requests are received, the City may proceed with this project as outlined in
the Project File Report.
Director, Environmental Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment
77 Wellesley St. West, 11th Fl.
Toronto ON M7A 2T5
Issue Date: July 10, 2014
Information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the
public record.
Island WaterTreatment Plant
Capacity Increase Study
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Notice of Completion
Tel: 416-392-4360
Fax: 416-392-2974
TTY: 416-338-0889
E-mail: mlogan@toronto.ca
Fax: 416-314-8452
E-mail: EAASIBgen@ontario.ca

REPORT
D-1
Appendix D - Consultation Comments and
Responses

Date Person Organization Link Comment Response Response Date
20-Jun Individual Email I was wondering how much research is planned for the
impact of the Toronto Island public school, located right
next to the facility.
As well how much the health and safety of the school and
it's faculty and students play in your decision process.
Thanks very much for your question. As noted in the
online information, the recommended solution is to
maximize production capacity of the existing plant
infrastructure. This means that for the recommended
solution, there would be no construction or operational
impacts to the public including the school. The
feasibility of achieving increased capacity using
existing infrastructure has been studied and found to
20-Jun
23-Jun Aidan Pereira Ministry of
Natural
Resources
Email It is unclear, at this time as to exactly what the undertaking
may involve. The MNR notes that the Island Water
Treatment Plant is located within an area containing
woodlands and wetlands; there are also records of
species at risk within the vicinity of the Treatment Plant.
The proponent should take every reasonable step to
avoid or minimize negative impacts on these features.
N/A
24-Jun Individual Email Thank you for this information about the upcoming review
of the capacity increase proposal. Please place me on
your mailing list for this project.
Is there a eia doc available for the work now being
undertaken at the south-east corner of your facility ? First I
heard about it was biking past the newly-erected fence.
As a long term resident of the island, will there be an
opportunity to visit the plant this summer ? I am interested
to see the changed pipeline connection and other
operational features.
The information about the watermain you refer to is
avaialble on our website
(http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnext
oid=45a78da78b151410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCR
D). If you have any questions or comments about the
capacity increase study, please let me know.
24-Jun
24-Jun Individual Telephon
e
Concerned about construction impacts. The park has
never been remediated properly after the new watermain
construction.
There will be no construction associated with the
recommended solution.
24-Jun
24-Jun Mark Hamilton Hydro One Email Hydo One does not have any concerns with your
proposed work on the Toronto islands.
24-Jun Candice Au Toronto Water Email We would like to be involved in the study as we currently
have infrastructure projects ongoing and planned that will
support the Island WTP in the near future.
I spoke with Candice this morning. She was interested
in whether the Island WTP's proposed increase in
rated capacity would have an effect on the downstream
side of TO Water's water supply and distribution flows.
Her interest is more in the water system modelling in
regard to eliminating the existing pressure bottleneck
on the mainland. I explained that the proposed re-
rating of the Island WTP doesn't change anything in
Toronto Water's supply system - that the mainland
pressure challenge (and opportunity) remains the
same. She was also interested to see if the new
watermain that has been installed half way across the
Island over the past winter has any bearing on this re-
rating exercise. I explained that the two projects are
mutually exclusive, but that we can discuss the best
approach to the Plant's future service water supply
30-Jun
25-Jun Susan Hughes City Planning,
Heritage
Preservation
Services
Email If there is no soil disturbance there is no need for
archaeology
N/A
27-Jun Avery Carr City Planning,
Community
Planning Section
Email I would completely agree that solution #1, maximizing the
production capacity, is the best option. If this can be done
without designing and constructing additional infrastructure
then I see no reason why option 2 should be considered.
Thanks for letting us know about this.
N/A
30-Jun Dave Simpson Alderville First
Nation
Letter Keep Alderville apprised of any archaeological findings,
burial sites or any environmental impacts, should any
N/A
7-Jul Lori Louks Hiawatha First
Nation
Letter Keep Hiawatha FN apprised of any archaeological
findings, burial sites or any environmental impacts, should
any occur.
N/A
8-Jul Individual Email What are the requirements or conditions for the increase
in capacity on the current infrastructure? This is not stated
anywhere in the extremely brief presentation. If there are
none, what is the point of the consultation?
It has been determined that the existing plant
infrastructure can handle the increased capacity.
Essentially, the increased capacity can be achieved by
making the pumps work a little harder. The detailed
engineering analysis that was undertaken to show this
will be included in the Project File Report that will be
available later this week. Please take a look at this
report, which will be posted at www.toronto.ca/islandtp
on Thursday.
An Environmental Assessment, which includes public
consultation, is required any time a water treatment
plant's capacity needs to be increased. This ensures
that the City looks at various options for achieving the
new capacity. In this case, the EA led us to the
conclusion that the existing equipment can handle this
capacity increase. Since there will be no construction
required, there is very little, if any, impact to the
environment and surrounding community.
8-Jul
9-Jul Corey Kinsella Curve Lake First
Nation
Email Curve Lake First Nation has no specific interests in this
project, given the expansion will utilize existing equipment
and infrastructure.
N/A

Island Water Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion - Project File Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Island Water Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion - Project File Report

Similar to Island Water Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion - Project File Report (20)

More from Toronto Public Consultation Unit

More from Toronto Public Consultation Unit (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Island Water Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion - Project File Report