Approval of the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment

The ministry’s approval of an environmental assessment for the City of Toronto’s plan to reduce the environmental impact of the Ashbridges Bay wastewater treatment plant.

On this page Skip this page navigation

Notice of approval

Proponent: The City of Toronto
Environmental assessment (EA) file number: MU-1027-02

Take notice that the period for requesting a hearing, provided for in the Notice of Completion of the Review for the above noted undertaking, expired on June 25, 2004. I received eleven submissions before the expiration date. Two submissions requested a hearing by the Environmental Review Tribunal and seven persons requested matters be referred for mediation.

I do not consider it advisable or necessary to hold a hearing or to order mediation. Having considered the purpose of the Act, the Environmental Assessment, the Review and submissions received, I hereby give approval to proceed with the undertaking, subject to conditions set out below.

Reasons

My reasons for giving approval are:

On the basis of the proponent’s Environmental Assessment and the Review, the proponent’s conclusion that, on balance, the advantages of this undertaking outweigh its disadvantages appears to be valid.
No other beneficial alternative method of implementing the undertaking was identified.
On the basis of the proponent’s Environmental Assessment, the Review and the conditions of approval, the construction, operation and maintenance of the undertaking will be consistent with the purpose of the Act (section 2).
The Government Review Team has indicated no outstanding concerns that can not be addressed through these conditions of approval or the approvals under the Ontario Water Resources Act which will be required for the undertakings.
The public review of the Environmental Assessment and the Review did not identify any outstanding concerns which can not be addressed through these conditions of approval or the approvals under the Ontario Water Resources Act which will be required for the undertakings
I am not aware of any outstanding issues with respect to this undertaking which suggest that a hearing should be required.

Definitions

Proponent: means the City of Toronto and/or any other operator of the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant.
ABTP: means the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant, formerly known as Main Treatment Plant.
MOE: means the Ministry of the Environment.
EAAB: means to the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch of the Ministry of the Environment.
Director: means the Director of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch.
Regional Director: means the Director of the MOE’s Central Region Office.
Director under OWRA: means a person who has authority under the Ontario Water Resources Act to sign and issue an approval under said Act.
District Manager: means the Manager of the MOE’s Toronto District Office.
EA: refers to the environmental assessment entitled Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment, November 17, 1997.
MA: refers to the Mediation Agreement which was signed by the City of Toronto and eight other signatories on April 16, 1999. The MA is pages 21 to 113 of the Mediator’s Report, which was submitted to MOE on November 17, 1999. The MA amends the EA.
OWRA: refers to the Ontario Water Resources Act.
PWQOs: refers to the Provincial Water Quality Objectives.
EPA: refers to the Environmental Protection Act.
ICMC: refers to the public liaison committee known as the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant (formerly Main Treatment Plant) Environmental Assessment Approval Implementation Compliance and Monitoring Committee.
NLC: refers to the public liaison committee known as the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant Neighourhood Liaison Committee.
UV: means ultra-violet.

Conditions

The projects which are receiving approval as part of the undertaking under this EA are a new outfall pipe, an effluent pumping station and a UV disinfection system. No projects related to this approval shall result in the increase of the rated capacity of the plant for secondary treatment (average) above 818 megalitres per day or the capacity of the new outfall above 3,923 megalitres per day at high lake water level or the other capacities set forth in Resolution #3 of the MA or in the expansion of the current solids handling capacity of the plant (as per page 29 of the MA, “Addendum: Explanatory Text Regarding Tables 17.4 and 17.5”).
The proponent shall comply with the provisions of the EA, as amended by the MA, relating to the construction or pre-construction study and assessment of the three approved projects of the undertaking, excluding timing and scheduling, except as provided in these conditions and except as provided in any OWRA or EPA approvals for the projects of the undertaking, and in any other approvals or permits that may be issued.
These conditions do not prevent more restrictive conditions being imposed under other statutes.
Where a document is required for the Public Record, a copy shall be provided to the Director for filing with the Public Record maintained for this undertaking and a copy shall be provided to the Director for MOE staff use. Additional copies of such documents shall be provided by the proponent for public access to:
1. the Regional Director;
2. the District Manager;
3. the Clerk’s offices of the City of Toronto; and
4. the ICMC and the NLC.
1. The proponent shall prepare and submit to the Director for the Public Record an EA Compliance Monitoring Program (Program) which has the purpose of monitoring the proponent’s fulfillment of:
  1. the provisions of the EA, as amended by the MA, relating to the construction or pre-construction study and assessment of the projects within the undertaking; and
  2. the conditions of approval of the EA.
2. Items (1) i) and ii) shall both include, but not be limited to, matters regarding:
  1. public consultation
  2. additional studies and work to be carried out;
  3. additional approvals required prior to construction of projects; and
  4. mitigation measures.
1. The proponent shall prepare an Annual Compliance Report (Report) which includes:
  1. a description of compliance with the provisions of the EA, as amended by the MA, specifically relating to the three projects within the undertaking;
  2. a description of compliance with the conditions of approval set out in this document;
  3. the results of the proponent’s Environmental Assessment Compliance Monitoring Program (Program)
  4. a summary of the evaluation of compliance with the EA approval provided by the ICMC and a response from the proponent. The entire evaluation shall be provided in an appendix;
  5. a summary of any other complaints, such as noise, odour and water quality, received regarding the construction or operation of the projects of the undertaking or compliance with the EA approval, and a response from the proponent. Copies of the complaints including the names and addresses of the complainants shall be provided in an appendix;
  6. a summary of all initiatives undertaken during the year to implement the EA approval;
  7. a summary of initiatives intended to be undertaken to implement the EA approval in the next calendar year;
  8. an indication of progress made towards achieving compliance with the provisions of the MOE Procedures set forth in Condition 19; and
  9. an update of the study and implementation schedules for the plans, programs and measures set forth in Condition 19.
2. The first Report shall be issued and submitted for the Public Record no later than the March 31 following the date of this approval. If the Program has not been finalized by then, the results of the Program would not need to be described in that edition of the Report, although best efforts shall be made to provide information likely to be provided by the Program.
3. Subsequent Reports shall be issued and submitted for the Public Record on or before March 31 each year thereafter and shall cover the previous calendar year.
4. The proponent shall submit Annual Compliance Reports until the projects within the undertaking have been implemented and all conditions of this approval have been satisfied. When all conditions have been satisfied, the proponent shall indicate in the Report that this is its final submission.
1. The proponent shall prepare and submit for the Public Record an annual Mediation Agreement Status Update no later than the March 31 following the date of this approval. The format shall be similar to that provided by the November 28, 2002 Mediation Agreement Status Update.
2. The Mediation Agreement Status Update shall include:
  1. compliance status with the commitments made in the MA;
  2. ICMC comments;
  3. progress update;
  4. explanation of any delays in fulfilling commitments and revised schedules for fulfilling such commitments; and
  5. items set out in Resolution #10, Item 3.5 of the MA as they relate to all commitments made in the MA.
3. The proponent shall submit the annual Mediation Agreement Status Update until the projects within the undertaking have been implemented and all conditions of approval have been satisfied. The Mediation Report Status Update may be submitted as an appendix to the Annual Compliance Monitoring Report.
1. The ICMC shall be continued by the proponent at least until the projects within the undertaking have been implemented and all conditions of approval have been satisfied.
2. The ICMC's purpose shall be to:
  1. assist with the implementation of all aspects of the EA approval by providing public input to the proponent on issues relating to the implementation of the EA approval and the MA;
  2. serve as the focal point for the dissemination, review and exchange of information and monitoring results relevant to the City’s compliance with the EA approval and the MA;
  3. fulfill a mandate as described in the Terms of Reference for the ICMC included in the MA after Resolution #10, with the exception that any references to the EA approval, including all commitments made as part of the MA, are removed, and the ICMC shall be identified as having the two different roles of monitoring the City’s compliance with the EA approval and with the MA; and
  4. function as the steering committee for any studies related to the detailed design of and/or applications for approval under the OWRA for the outfall and the UV disinfection system, as stated in Resolution #8, Items 2.6 and 2.5, respectively, of the MA.
3. The ICMC shall have the membership, duration of existence, operating procedures, resource support and information access, as follows:
  1. as specified in Terms of Reference for the ICMC, included in the MA after Resolution #10;
  2. as specifically expanded upon by any other text of any item of the MA which pertains to matters within this EA approval; and
  3. a “majority of members of the ICMC” shall mean a majority of the members present at a given meeting of the ICMC.
4. The provisions in subsections (2) or (3) shall not be reduced from that specified unless unanimous consent of the ICMC is granted or if a majority of both the ICMC’s members and City Council request the Director of the Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch to make such changes, at which time the Director may consult other parties prior to reaching a determination. This does not prohibit the ICMC and City Council from both agreeing to expand the provisions without any decision of the Director being required.
1. The NLC shall be maintained by the proponent in accordance with the Terms of Reference included in the MA after Resolution #9 and shall serve as a focal point for the dissemination, review and exchange of information and monitoring results relevant to the operation of the ABTP.
2. A majority of members of the NLC shall mean a majority of the members present at a given meeting of the NLC.
3. If there is no interest from the public in continuing the existing NLC, the committee may be discontinued. However, the need for a NLC shall be reviewed by the proponent if any future interest is expressed and also reviewed annually regardless of whether any interest is expressed.
4. A review of the need for a NLC shall include the publishing of a notice in newspapers with general circulation in the subject area inviting expressions of interest in the formation of NLC, as well as the notification of parties who the proponent reasonably knows may be interested, including past members.
5. If there is interested in forming a NLC and members are willing to serve, the NLC shall be re-established.
6. If, during any time a NLC is not in existence, the proponent is required to comply with any of the conditions set forth in this approval which require consultation with the NLC, the proponent shall undertake the necessary consultation through mailing notice to the list of members of the NLC within the last year of its existence, and providing, upon request, appropriate documentation related to the item. Comments received through this consultation shall be treated as comments obtained from public consultation.
1. The proponent’s application for approval under the OWRA for the proposed enlarged outfall pipe and the proposed UV disinfection system shall include, but shall not be limited to:
  1. information regarding the anticipated effluent quality (i.e. biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, total phosphorous and E. coli) of the blended (primary and secondary treated) effluent during secondary bypass events, so it can be determined if a receiving water assimilation assessment, taking into consideration the full effluent loadings of the plant, including any decant from the plant’s ash lagoons, is necessary;
  2. a revised mixing zone analysis using the final diffuser design and dilution ratios, with the secondary effluent flows and quality, as well as the bypass (blended effluent) flows and quality, for the purpose of demonstrating that the average daily flow of secondary effluent with the new diffuser and under different discharge scenarios will meet the PWQO’s at the edge of the mixing zone;
  3. consideration of all items outlined in Resolution #8 - Section 2 - Proposed Outfall Pipe - Item 2.4 of the MA, unless the OWRA Director determines otherwise;
  4. an assessment of the feasibility of using 0.5 mg/L as an objective for total phosphorous for Section 3 - Operation and Maintenance of the Certificate of Approval, wherein the Proponent is required to use best efforts to operate the plant with the objective that concentrations lower than those generally established for compliance purposes are met;
  5. an assessment, in consultation with MOE’s Central Region Water Resources Unit, of the feasibility of whether the concentration levels of the biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, total phosphorous, E. coli and pH in the blended effluent (combined primary and secondary) should be calculated annually by the City for information purposes;
  6. an assessment, in consultation with MOE’s Central Region Water Resources Unit, of the establishment of a compliance limit for E. coli for secondary effluent; and
  7. monitoring and contingency plans to provide verification that the UV disinfection system is working as predicted.
  8. modeling and monitoring of the impacts of the effluent combined with other factors (e.g. lake currents) on water quality along beaches of central Toronto shoreline to ensure there are no negative impacts.
2. Environment Canada shall be circulated the complete OWRA application by the Proponent.
1. In accordance with Resolution 8, Item 2.5, of the MA, the proponent shall undertake a comprehensive public consultation program on the preparation of studies required to be completed as part of the OWRA application and detailed design processes for the outfall. Further, the ICMC and NLC shall be consulted by the proponent regarding the design of an appropriate public consultation process. As stated in Resolution 8, Item 2.6, of the MA, and in Condition 8 (2) iv) the ICMC shall be the Steering Committee for these processes, and shall be given the opportunity to review the terms of reference of all OWRA studies and participate in the selection of consultants hired to complete them.
1. The outfall design and construction will be carried out so that effects on fish and fish habitat, both permanent effects and temporary effects during construction, as well as any other identified effects, are minimized and appropriately mitigated, as required by the OWRA and other required approvals. The design study shall include an examination of:
  1. methods of construction - tunnel versus open trench;
  2. sediment quality in area of construction;
  3. proposed location for disposal of dredged material (depends on sediment quality);
  4. proposed methods to prevent/minimize turbidity from the construction;
  5. the capacity/diameter of the individual components and of the outfall itself;
  6. length and design of diffusers;
  7. the treatment (for example, removal or decommissioning) of the existing outfall pipe; and
  8. other relevant items identified by other interested agencies or the public.
2. As part of these requirements, MOE’s Evaluating Construction Activities Impacting on Water Resources. Parts III A-C, 1994 shall be complied with.
1. If through studies completed as part of the OWRA application or during preparation of the detailed design it is shown that it is not technically or economically reasonable to disinfect secondary bypass effluent solely by UV disinfection, the method(s) of disinfection to be used for this portion of the effluent shall be determined by the proponent, in consultation with MOE, through consideration of:
  1. the results of the UV design optimization study and any other relevant studies;
  2. the options identified in Resolution #7, Item 4 iii, of the MA;
  3. the principles outlined on page 84 of the MA;
  4. consultation with other government agencies who the proponent believes may be interested in the matter;
  5. consultation with the ICMC and NLC; and
  6. consultation with the public.
2. A comprehensive public consultation process, designed in consultation with the ICMC and the NLC, and with appropriate documentation of the additional analysis completed being made available, will be undertaken by the proponent.
3. The method to be used can be implemented by the City under this EA approval, subject to the other requirements of this condition.
4. In the event that the majority of members of the ICMC are not in agreement with the proponent’s final selected disinfection option, once government agency consultation is complete, the proponent shall provide notice of its selected option to all parties who expressed an interest in the matter. The notice shall state:
  1. that any party may, within 30 days of the notice, request that the Minister of the Environment require the proponent to follow the process set forth for either a Schedule B or C Project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment; and
  2. that any such request must contain the environmental reasons for the request being made.
5. In making a decision on the request outlined in (4), the Minister will consider:
  1. the request and the reasons set forth in it;
  2. all documentation prepared by the City in fulfillment of the above portions of these conditions;
  3. the response provided by the City regarding the request;
  4. the public and agency consultation undertaken by the City and the results of such consultation; and
  5. relevant documentation of the decisions of the ICMC and the NLC.
  6. If the Minister directs that the processes set forth for either Schedule B or C Projects under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be undertaken, the Minister will also direct that the principles outlined in Condition 13 (1) and (2) shall be followed. However, the Minister may also indicate that certain requirements of the processes have already been fulfilled by the City’s previous public consultation process and that certain provisions of the Class EA process do not apply to this matter.
1. If, through studies completed as part of the OWRA application or during preparation of the detailed design, and in consultation with the MOE, it is shown that:
  1. it is not technically or economically reasonable to disinfect effluent that receives secondary treatment with UV disinfection system; and
  2. some other form of disinfection must be utilized;
  the Proponent shall proceed through, at a minimum, the process set forth for Schedule B projects under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, and shall also follow the principles outlined in Condition 13 (1) and (2). The Proponent will be subject to all provisions of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment as it applies to Schedule B projects, including Part II Order Request (request for individual EA) provisions.
1. If, through studies completed as part of the OWRA application or during preparation of the detailed design, and in consultation with MOE, it is shown that an alternative other than, or in addition to, the proposed enlarged outfall is required for discharging any portion of the ABTP’s effluent at any time in order for the secondary effluent to meet the PWQOs, the Proponent shall proceed, at a minimum, through the process set forth for Schedule B projects under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment.
1. If, through studies completed as part of the OWRA application or during preparation of the detailed design, and in consultation with MOE, it is shown that both the UV disinfection system and the proposed enlarged outfall require replacement by other alternatives, the planning and implementation of both alternative projects shall proceed, as one Schedule B project, at a minimum, under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment and for the replacement of the UV disinfection system, shall also follow the principles outlined in Condition 13 (1) and (2). The Proponent will be subject to all provisions of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment as it applies to Schedule B projects, including Part II Order Request (request for individual EA) provisions.
1. The proponent shall only release UV treated effluent through the new outfall as approved under the OWRA unless a suitable assessment of an alternative method is completed to the satisfaction of MOE's Central Region Water Resources Unit and the OWRA Director, and then, only in accordance with all requirements or conditions set forth by MOE's Central Water Resources Unit and the OWRA Director.
2. The assessment must include mitigation measures and illustrate that there are no negative effects on human health or aquatic habitat in the nearshore and shoreline areas of water bodies in the vicinity of the ABTP associated with the alternative method of discharge.
1. As stated in Resolution 8, Items 2.6 and 2.5, respectively, of the MA, (and mentioned in Condition 8, Clause (2) iii), the ICMC shall be the steering committee for any studies related to the detailed design of and/or applications for approval under the OWRA for the outfall and the UV disinfection system and the undertaking of such studies shall include a comprehensive public consultation program.
1. The City of Toronto (City) shall continue to develop and implement plans, programs and measures to optimize the use of the plant’s approved wastewater treatment capacity as part of the City achieving compliance (in the plant’s service area) with the relevant provisions of MOE Procedure F-5-1 - Determination of Treatment Requirements for Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works Discharging to Surface Waters and MOE Procedure F-5-5 - Determination of Treatment Requirements for Municipal and Private Combined and Partially Separated Sewer Systems.
  
  The relevant provisions include, for example, those pertaining to combined sewer systems and pollution prevention and control plans. The City’s plans for optimizing the use of the plant in complying with these procedures in the plant’s service area shall reflect the goals of F-5-5, which include:
  1. eliminating the occurrence of dry weather flow overflows (presently met by City but which needs to be sustained);
  2. minimizing the potential for impacts on human health and aquatic life resulting from combined sewer overflows;
  3. utilizing secondary treatment capacity as much as possible for treating wet weather flows with the balance of flows being subject to primary treatment; and
  4. minimizing the pollutant loadings under wet weather conditions.
2. The plans, programs and measures (for example, the City’s Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan) shall consider items related to wet weather flows, water use efficiency, sewer usage, and pesticide use reduction, amongst others.
3. As set forth in Condition 6, clauses(1) viii) and ix), as part of the Annual Compliance Report submitted to MOE, progress made towards the above shall be outlined and study and implementation schedules for the above items shall be updated.
1. On a date before the sixth anniversary of the date of approval of the undertaking, the City shall, to the satisfaction of MOE’s Central Region Water Resources Unit, produce a report for the public record quantifying the progress towards compliance with MOE Procedure F-5-1 - Determination of Treatment Requirements for Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works Discharging to Surface Waters and MOE Procedure F-5-5 - Determination of Treatment Requirements for Municipal and Private Combined and Partially Separated Sewer Systems at the plant and in the plant’s service area.
2. The report shall also assess how the programs set forth in Condition 19 have contributed towards these reductions or if other factors such as population growth in the service area, have had an effect, and if additional programs should be implemented to increase the reductions of effluent flows through the plant.
1. The text under the heading Lapse of Time Between Approval and Construction found in Section 19 of the EA, is replaced by the following text:
  
  “If the construction of an undertaking receiving approval through this EA approval is not commenced 5 years from the date of this approval, the proponent shall review and document whether any changes have taken place since the approval to ensure that the project and any mitigation measures related to it are still valid. The changes may include, for example, natural, social, cultural and economic environmental conditions, new engineering standards or new technologies for mitigating measures. The documentation shall be provided to the ICMC, the NLC, MOE and any other governmental agencies which expressed an interest in any relevant matter during the review of the EA, for review.”
1. The proponent shall ensure that the intent of the provisions of Resolution #9 – Good Neighbour Issues - Item 2 - Noise and Item 6 - Site Plan and Visual Aesthetics are followed for all construction activities and regular operations pertaining to the new outfall, the UV disinfection system and the effluent pumping station and for removal of any redundant equipment.

Dated the 8^th day of August, 2007 at Toronto.

Original signed by Laurel Broten
Minister of the Environment
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 12^th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5

Approved by O.C. number 136/2008
Date approved: February 13, 2008

Updated: July 05, 2021

Published: June 15, 2016