Utilities Kingston - Point Pleasant (Kingston West) Water

Document Sample
Utilities Kingston - Point Pleasant (Kingston West) Water Powered By Docstoc
					        Welcome
                to the
   Public Information Centre for the
 Point Pleasant (Kingston West)
Water Treatment Plant Expansion
           Schedule C
Class Environmental Assessment




            May 20, 2009
               Background

Utilities Kingston completed a Master Plan for Water
Supply in June 2007. The Master Plan identified works
necessary to accommodate the current (2007), the
near-term (2011), the mid-term (2016), and the long-
term (2026) water supply and distribution system
requirements for the urban area of the City of Kingston.

One of the priority projects identified through the
Master Plan was to expand the Point Pleasant
(Kingston West) Water Treatment Plant from its current
rated capacity of 45.5 MLD (million litres per day) to 80
MLD by the year 2012.

The Master Plan completed Phase 1 (Problem
Definition) and Phase 2 (Assessment of Alternative
Solutions) of the Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment process.

Utilities Kingston is now completing the Schedule C
Class EA requirements (i.e. Phases 3 and 4 of the
Class EA process) for the Point Pleasant (Kingston
West) Water Treatment Plant Expansion.
Methodology for Assessment of
   Expansion Alternatives
         Review Alternative
            Treatment
           Technologies



         Develop Alternative
        Treatment/Expansion
             Strategies




        Develop Evaluation
             Criteria




        Evaluate Alternatives
           Using Criteria




          Select Preferred
            Expansion
            Alternative
Alternative Treatment Technologies

   Current Treatment Approach
   The existing treatment processes at the Point Pleasant
   (Kingston West) WTP include direct filtration for
   particulate and organics (taste and odour) removal, and
   chlorination for disinfection.

   The water produced by the existing facilities meets or
   exceeds the current regulatory requirements of the
   Ministry of the Environment (MOE).

   Alternatives
   As part of the Class EA process, the following alternative
   treatment technologies were reviewed:

     Particulate Removal
          ● Coagulation / Flocculation / Filtration (Direct
            Filtration)
          ● Membrane Filtration

     Disinfection
          ● Ozonation
          ● UV Irradiation
          ● Chlorination

     Organics Removal
         ● Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Adsorption
         ● Advanced Oxidation
         ● Biologically Active Filtration
         ● Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)
       Evaluation Criteria

Technical Criteria
  Ability to meet treatment objectives
  Reliability to meet quality requirements
  Flexibility to meet future water supply demands
  Operational complexity and operator familiarity

Natural Environment Criteria
  Potential impact on aquatic systems
  Potential impact on terrestrial systems

Social/Cultural Criteria
  Odour
  Noise
  Visual – Aesthetic
  Occupational health and safety
  Surrounding land uses
  Archaeology

Economic Criteria
  Capital costs
  Operating and maintenance costs
         Site Constraints
The following is a map showing layout constraints
for consideration during design and construction:
Process and Features Selection

Evaluation criteria were applied to each treatment expansion option
in a qualitative fashion to determine the preferred treatment
process option

Expansion using direct filtration process was chosen due to:
     ● Ease of integration with existing process (more of the same
        process vs. two different processes run in parallel)

      ● Operator familiarity with direct filtration (existing process)

      ● Lower operations and maintenance requirements which
        will translate to lower long term costs and fewer additional
        operations staff

Based on the selection of an expansion of the direct filtration
process, the following new structures and conveyance upgrades have
been identified:

      ● Expand the direct filtration process, including a process
        building expansion

      ● Provide increased storage capacity in the form of two new
        reservoirs similar in size to those currently on site

      ● Provide a new high lift pumping station

      ● Expand the inter-connecting piping on-site to service the
        expanded facility

      ● Provide a second watermain feed from the plant to the
        distribution system

Four potential site arrangements have been developed, as
illustrated on the following display boards. All potential arrangements
provide the required treatment capacity and water quality.
Process and Features Selection

Option 1
  Pros:
  ● Provides the greatest flexibility for
    future expansion
  ● Incorporates a direct and
    uncomplicated piping layout
  ● Provides operational flexibility through
    parallel process layout and storage
    design
  ● Layout avoids work along lakeshore
    or near heritage structure

  Cons:
  ● Remote high lift pumping station
    requires additional road access and longer electrical feeds,
    which increases cost


Option 2
  Pros:
  ● Easy and less intrusive for future
    expansion
  ● Incorporates a direct and
    uncomplicated piping layout
  ● Provides easy operator access to
    valves and piping
  ● Layout avoids work along lakeshore
    or near heritage structure

  Cons:
  ● Remote high lift pumping station requires additional road
    access and longer electrical feeds, which increases cost
  ● Limited operational flexibility as new reservoirs cannot be
    operated in parallel
Process and Features Selection

Option 3
  Pros:
  ● Provides some flexibility for future
    expansion
  ● Layout avoids work along lakeshore
    or near heritage structure

  Cons:
  ● Remote high lift pumping station
    requires additional road access
    and longer electrical feeds, which
    increases cost
  ● Does not make use of existing
    reservoirs, therefore requires more
    construction and higher costs
  ● More complicated piping layout


Option 4
  Pros:
  ● More compact layout and less remote
    new high lift pump station, which
    provides easier access for operations
    staff

  Cons:
  ● Layout makes future expansion more
    difficult
  ● Congested site layout and more
    complicated piping and flow path
  ● Future expansion may require work closer to heritage building
    and lakeshore
Issues for Consideration in Pre-design

    It is recommended to further investigate Options 1 and 2 during
    preliminary design:

        ● Both Options 1 and 2 result in similar environmental impacts
          with straightforward mitigation requirements
        ● Both Options 1 and 2 provide flexibility for construction
          staging and sequencing, long term operations, and future
          expansion
        ● The capital cost to implement either of the preferred
          Options is estimated to be in the order of $60 Million + GST
          (excluding land costs)
        ● The City of Kingston and Utilities Kingston will pursue all
          potential funding and grant sources to offset the capital cost
          as much as possible
        ● Capital cost estimates will be refined during detailed design,
          and value engineering will be utilized to assist with the
          optimization of the final design

    Pre-design efforts will finalize site layout with consideration towards:

        ● Capital and long term operation costs
        ● Access for operations and maintenance activities
        ● Capability for future expansion
        ● Protection of natural and social environments

    Opportunities to optimize the existing plant to maximize treatment
    capacity while achieving water quality objectives will be investigated

    Water storage requirements on-site will be reviewed and optimized
                      - Next Steps -

1. File the Environmental Study Report (ESR) for 30-
   day review period

2. Complete Preliminary Design (2009)
     ● Technical review of options
     ● Complete geotechnical and environmental
       testing on-site
     ● Refine site layout, process sizing confirmation
       and capital planning

3. Finalize detailed design (2010)

4. Tender and construction (2011 – 2012)*
    ( *Subject to funding and capital budget approval.)

   If you have any questions or comments, please
   contact:

 Dan Lalande, P.Eng.                           Allen K. Lucas, P.Eng.
 Project Manager                               Utilities Engineer
 J.L. Richards & Associates Limited            Utilities Kingston
 863 Princess Street, Suite 203                1211 John Counter Boulevard
 Kingston, ON K7L 5N4                          Kingston, ON K7L 4X7
 Tel: (613) 544-1424 ext. 224                  Tel: (613) 546-1181 ext. 2250
 Fax: (613) 544-5679                           Fax: (613) 542-1463

 Email: kingston-water@utilitieskingston.com