1. TRAIL ROAD
LANDFILL LEACHATE AND NEPEAN LANDFILL CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER - RE-OPENING
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
LIXIVIAT DE LA DÉCHARGE DU CHEMIN
TRAIL ET EAUX SOUTERRAINES CONTAMINÉES DU SITE D'ENFOUISSEMENT DE NEPEAN -
RÉOUVERTURE DU PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE
|
COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED
That Council give staff
direction to proceed to finalize the Environmental Study Report identifying the second place alternative, on-site treatment, as the preferred method of managing leachate and
contaminated groundwater generated by the Trail Road Landfill and Nepean
Landfill, respectively.
And
that funding in Capital Account #900339, Trail Road Landfill Leachate, be
increased to $8.2 million to provide for the construction of the on-site
Facility.
And that the City Treasurer be directed to identify a source of funding
as the moneys are required, that would not otherwise impact the planned 2005
Capital program.
RECOMMANDATION MOdifié du COMITÉ
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement et le Conseil municipal donnent des directives au personnel
afin qu'il parachève le Rapport d'étude environnementale établissant la
deuxième option, le traitement sur place pour la gestion du lixiviat et des
eaux souterraines générés par la décharge du chemin Trail et le site
d'enfouissement de Nepean.
Que le financement du compte d’immobilisation no
900339, Lixiviat de la décharge du chemin Trail, soit
accru de 8,2 millions de dollars afin de permettre la construction des installations
sur place.
Que le trésorier de la Ville soit chargé
de repérer une source de financement suffisante pour les besoins qui n’aura pas
d’impact sur le budget des immobilisations prévues de 2005.
Documentation
1. Deputy
City Manager, Public Works and Services report dated 9 November 2004
(ACS2004-TUP-INF-0012).
2. Extract
of Draft Minutes will be distributed prior to Council.
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment
Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
9 November 2004 / le 9 novembre 2004
Submitted by/Soumis par : R.T. Leclair, Deputy City Manager/Directrice
municipale adjointe
Public Works and Services/Services et Travaux publics
Contact Person/Personne
ressource : Richard Hewitt, Director Infrastructure Services
Infrastructure Services/Services d'infrastructure
(613) 580-2424 x21268, richard.hewitt@ottawa.ca
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2004-TUP-INF-0012
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
TRAIL ROAD LANDFILL LEACHATE AND NEPEAN
LANDFILL CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER - RE-OPENING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
LIXIVIAT DE LA
DÉCHARGE DU CHEMIN TRAIL ET EAUX SOUTERRAINES CONTAMINÉES DU SITE
D'ENFOUISSEMENT DE NEPEAN - RÉOUVERTURE DU PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION
ENVIRONNEMENTALE
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council give staff direction
to proceed to finalize the Environmental Study Report identifying Pipeline as
the preferred method of managing leachate and contaminated groundwater
generated by the Trail Road Landfill and Nepean Landfill, respectively, and
Route 6 as the preferred pipeline route.
The pipeline alternative is proposed to convey leachate and contaminated
groundwater in a buried forcemain eastward along Cambrian Road to Jockvale Road
and north on Jockvale Road to a tie-in at the South Nepean Collector Phase I,
which will be completed in Summer 2005.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement recommande au Conseil municipal de donner des directives au
personnel afin qu'il parachève le Rapport d'étude environnementale établissant
le transport par canalisation comme méthode privilégiée pour la gestion du
lixiviat et des eaux souterraines générés par la décharge du chemin Trail et le
site d'enfouissement de Nepean, respectivement, et le tracé 6 comme tracé
privilégié pour la canalisation. La canalisation comme autre option possible
est proposée pour le transport du lixiviat et des eaux souterraines par égout
sous pression souterrain vers l'est le long du chemin Cambrian jusqu'au chemin
Jockvale et au nord du chemin Jockvale jusqu'à un raccordement à la Phase I du
collecteur de Nepean Sud, qui sera achevé à l'été de 2005.
BACKGROUND
In July 2002, following three years of study, route
selection, technology selection and environmental assessment, staff received
Ministry of the Environment confirmation that bump-up requests pertaining to
this project were denied. As a result,
staff proceeded with the final design of a pipeline to carry leachate generated
from the active Trail Road Landfill and contaminated groundwater from the
closed Nepean Landfill easterly along Cambrian Road to Jockvale Road and
subsequently to a pumping station servicing the Stonebridge community. In late January 2003, developers of the
Stonebridge community (Monarch Construction) expressed concern regarding
construction of the pipeline and its routing from the Jockvale Road/Cambrian
Road intersection through Golflinks Drive to the Stonebridge pumping
station.
On 21 March 2003, the Ministry of the Environment issued an Order to
the City which stated in part that “The Nepean Landfill groundwater collection
system and associated leachate pipeline shall be installed and in operation by
31 December 2004”. The deadline for
this order has subsequently been extended to 30 April 2005.
On 26 March 2003, Council endorsed a recommendation from
Environmental Services Committee that directed staff to explore the
construction of a pipeline to the Stonebridge pumping station to carry only
contaminated groundwater from the former Nepean Landfill to the existing
gravity sewer located along Golflinks Drive, and explore the implementation of
an ultimate solution that would have the contaminated groundwater and leachate
conveyed by pipeline north on Jockvale Road to the future South Nepean
Collector Phase I, which is scheduled to be completed in Summer 2005. Both of the above recommendations were
conditional upon the developer of the Stonebridge community agreeing to assume
all additional costs due to additional design work, additional environmental
assessment work and additional construction costs. The developer, Monarch Construction, had on
25 March 2003 provided a
modified proposal for staff
consideration involving routing of the pipeline north on Jockvale Road to the
future South Nepean Collector Phase I.
Subsequent discussion and communication by staff with Monarch
Construction in April and May 2003 failed to resolve Monarch Construction’s
disagreement with the City’s environmental and legal positions regarding its
right to utilize the Stonebridge pumping station. This disagreement, notwithstanding Monarch Construction’s
willingness to contribute an upset amount of $50,000 towards the cost
differential to proceed with its modified proposal as expressed in its letter
to the City dated 20 May 2003, continued to be unresolved.
On 24 June 2003, a staff report to Environmental Services Committee
was considered which sought direction from Environmental Services Committee and
Council with respect to two options: “Option 1: Proceed with tendering and installation of the Trail Road
Leachate Pipeline along the corridor approved in 2002 by the Ministry of the
Environment” and “Option 2: Re-open the
Environmental Assessment process and re-evaluate the leachate pipeline routing
options between the intersection of Jockvale and Cambrian Roads, and a suitable
downstream connection to the wastewater collection system”. Upon consideration of the above options,
Environmental Services Committee approved the following recommendation, later
approved by Council on 23 July 2003:
“That the Environmental Services Committee and Council give staff
direction to re-open the Environmental Assessment process for the Trail Road
Leachate Management Plan and the treatment of contaminated groundwater from the
former Nepean Landfill Site”. The
recommendation approved by Council is significant in that its terminology
contemplates the re-opening of the leachate and contaminated groundwater
management Environmental Assessment process in its entirety (i.e. re-assessment
of all potential leachate and contaminated groundwater management
alternatives).
Subsequently, staff solicited requests for Expressions of Interest
from qualified consulting firms and Requests for Proposals from a shortlist of
three firms to undertake the above assignment, that being expressed in the
Request for Proposal as “This assignment is to re-open the Class Environmental
Assessment for the management of leachate at the Trail Road Landfill site and
for contaminated groundwater migrating from the Nepean Landfill site”. Based on a review of written submissions
and consultant interviews,Conestoga-Rovers&Associates (CRA) was retained to
complete this assignment.
The nature of the assignment undertaken by CRA was to conduct a
completely new and independent Class Environmental Assessment to re-evaluate
all potential leachate and contaminated groundwater management alternatives and
identify a preferred alternative. This
requires the filing of a new and independent Class Environmental
Assessment. Renewed public and agency
consultation was required as part of this assignment and new conceptual
leachate and contaminated groundwater management alternatives were required to
be identified and evaluated. CRA and
City staff (Project Team) commenced work on this assignment in November 2003.
DISCUSSION
The intent of this report is to update Committee and Council and to
provide an opportunity for Council to provide input prior to finalization and
filing of the Environmental Study Report (ESR).
Since the ESR has not been finalized, there is currently no
completed document to provide. This
will be undertaken immediately following Council consideration of this report.
ANALYSIS
PROBLEM DEFINITION
The problem definition for this assignment as required under the
Class Environmental Assessment process was to develop a long term management
strategy for Trail Road Landfill leachate and Nepean Landfill contaminated
groundwater.
Initially,
the problem as defined included the management of leachate generated by the
Trail Road Landfill and the groundwater
beneath the closed Nepean Landfill. The
contaminated groundwater flow was to be intercepted by a buried collector pipe
that would subsequently discharge to an on-site treatment facility or to a
pipeline for off-site treatment. This
approach was considered to be adequate to address the continuing discharge of
contaminated groundwater from beneath the Nepean Landfill.
In late May 2004, as this current Class Environmental Assessment was
approaching its conclusion, new information came to light as a result of the
City’s ongoing groundwater quality monitoring program at the Nepean
Landfill. The need to intercept the
contaminated groundwater, however, was greatly diminishing due to reduction of
contaminant levels within the groundwater.
Concurrently, recent groundwater monitoring results indicated that
exceedances of certain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) had been detected in
monitoring wells located on private property outside (downgradient) of the
approved Nepean Landfill boundary. This
new information instigated a reassessment of the contaminated groundwater
situation at the Nepean Landfill, which subsequently identified the need to
address the presence of elevated VOC levels. Notwithstanding the change in
focus on the nature and scope of groundwater containment and treatment, the
generic problem definition for this Class Environmental Assessment did not
change.
Based on direction received by the City from the Ministry of the
Environment on July 16, 2004, management approaches to the newly defined
outlying VOC contaminated groundwater plume were to be addressed under the
current Class Environmental Assessment process.
LONG-TERM LEACHATE AND CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES
A total of twelve leachate and contaminated groundwater management
alternatives were identified. Each of
the twelve management alternatives involved discharge of treated leachate or
contaminated groundwater to either the Ottawa River or the Jock River,
depending on method of conveyance. From
the twelve original alternatives, a total of eight alternatives were short
listed for detailed evaluation. The
eight alternatives included the following:
· Alternative 1 – Do
Nothing (Status Quo) – Maintain current practice of truck hauling Trail Road
Landfill leachate to the ROPEC with discharge to the Ottawa River. Nepean Landfill contaminated groundwater
remains untreated.
· Alternative 4 –
Leachate treated on-site with discharge to the Jock River. Contaminated groundwater treated on-site
with discharge to groundwater.
· Alternative 5 –
Leachate and contaminated groundwater trucked to the ROPEC with discharge to
the Ottawa River.
· Alternative 5A –
Leachate and contaminated groundwater trucked to a west end collector sewer
that drains to the ROPEC with discharge to the Ottawa River.
· Alternative 6 –
Leachate and contaminated groundwater piped to the ROPEC with discharge to the
Ottawa River.
· Alternative 8 –
Leachate trucked to the ROPEC with discharge to the Ottawa River. Contaminated groundwater treated on-site
with discharge to groundwater.
· Alternative 8A –
Leachate trucked to a west end collector sewer that drains to the ROPEC with discharge to the Ottawa River. Contaminated groundwater treated on-site
with discharge to groundwater.
· Alternative 10 –
Leachate piped to the ROPEC with discharge to the Ottawa River. Contaminated groundwater treated on-site
with discharge to groundwater.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODS
In order to assess the relative environmental impacts of each of the
identified leachate and contaminated groundwater management alternatives,
well-established and accepted environmental assessment evaluation methods were
employed. A Comment Sheet was first
established which provided the public and the Public Liaison Committee (PLC)
with a recommended list of comparative evaluation primary criteria and
subcriteria. With the input of the
public and the PLC, the following alternatives evaluation primary criteria and
subcriteria were identified:
Natural Environment
· Terrestrial
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
· Impact to
Groundwater Resources
· Surface Water Resources
· Air Quality
Land Use Environment
· Agricultural Land
Impact
· Recreation
· Residential,
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
Social Environment
· Visual Aesthetics
· Public Health
(Drinking Water and Trucking Accidents)
· Noise
and Vibration
· Nuisance
Odour
Facility Capital and 60-Year Operating Costs
System Performance
· Ability to Meet
Changing Wastestream Quantity and Quality Characteristics
· Proven Technology
· Energy Conservation
The relative importance of each of these criteria was measured by
assigning weights to each primary criterion and subcriteria through a scoring
system that measured the public’s, the PLC’s and the Project Team’s preferences
for certain environmental attributes.
The combined average of the three group responses was used as the
evaluation weights.
EVALUATION RESULTS
Based on the evaluation procedures used by the Project Team, the
first and second place alternatives were :
First Place Alternative
Alternative 6 (Pipeline): Leachate and contaminated groundwater
piped to the City collection system, which drains to ROPEC for treatment and
discharge to the Ottawa River.
Capital cost - $3,800,000 (includes engineering, project management,
construction and owners costs).
Second Place Alternative
Alternative 4 (On-Site Treatment): Consisting of two facilities
(i.e. leachate treatment facility with surface water discharge to the Jock
River and an on-site contaminated groundwater extraction and treatment facility
with discharge to groundwater).
Capital cost - $8,200,000
(includes engineering, project management, construction and owner costs)
PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
|
ITEM
|
PIPELINE
(ALT 6)
|
ON-SITE
(ALT 4)
|
|
LABOUR
|
$
31,200
|
$124,800
|
|
MAINTENANCE & REPLACEMENT
|
$
76,500
|
$214,000
|
|
CHEMICALS
|
$
15,000
|
$100,000
|
|
SITE MAINTENANCE
|
$
5,000
|
$
15,000
|
|
HYDRO
|
$
4,700
|
$112,200
|
|
LAB ANALYSIS
|
$
15,000
|
$
30,000
|
|
TREATMENT/SURCHARGE FEE
|
$442,600(1)
|
|
|
HAULAGE
|
|
$
8,000(2)
|
|
TOTAL
|
$590,000
|
$604,000
|
(1) The surcharge fee is levied in accordance
with the Sewer By-Law. It is a fee
levied to recover costs of treatment for discharge to the City's sewer system
of constituents which are in excess of the limits identified in the
By-Law. In this instance it is expected
that the limit for Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) will be exceeded.
(2) Haulage fees are anticipated to address the
disposition of process solids that will result as a by-product of
treatment. The material would be hauled
to the Trail Road Landfill.
PIPELINE ROUTE EVALUATION
For Alternative 6 (Pipeline), eight potential pipeline routes were
examined, including routes previously evaluated under earlier Environmental
Assessments. Several new potential
routes were also identified based on new existing or future connection
opportunities to the City’s wastewater collection system. These routes are identified on Figure 1
(attached). Each of the routes
identified were within public/road rights-of-way.
Based on various evaluation criteria including cost (i.e. length of
pipeline, etc.), degree of temporary construction disruption, proximity and
number of residential/farm properties along the potential pipeline routes,
temporal opportunity for connection to the City’s wastewater collection system
and system hydraulic capacity, route 6 was identified as the preferred
route.
Route 6 would involve proceeding east from the Trail Road and Nepean
Landfills along Cambrian Road to Jockvale Road, north on Jockvale Road to just
south of the Jock River and a tie-in to the South Nepean Collector Phase I due
to be completed in Summer 2005.
CONCLUSION
It is important to note that the first and second place alternatives
(Pipeline and On-Site Treatment) scored very close to each other. However, using the evaluation methods
developed for this assignment, Pipeline scored higher than On-Site in the final
analysis (9.34 out of 10 versus 8.99 out of 10). Compared with On-Site, Pipeline scored better in terms of:
· Capital cost;
· Energy use;
· Ease of operation;
· Operating
experience; and
· Sensitivity to
changes in leachate and contaminated groundwater chemistry.
On-Site, by comparison, scored better than Pipeline in terms of:
· Export of water out
of the watershed;
· Effluent quality;
and
· Construction
disruption.
A summary of the alternative costs is provided on Table 1
(attached).
It is further noted, notwithstanding the quantitative result of this
evaluation, that on-site treatment was preferred over other competing
alternatives by the local communities of Barrhaven and Stonebridge.
It should be noted that if Committee and Council select the On-site
Treatment Alternative additional public notification will be required in order
to comply with the Environmental Assessment process.
Staff supports the results of this Class Environmental Assessment,
which identifies Pipeline as the preferred long-term management approach to
addressing Trail Road Landfill leachate and Nepean Landfill contaminated
groundwater, and Route 6 as the preferred pipeline route.
CONSULTATION
Throughout this project, specific attention was given
to addressing input and obtaining comments from the public and government
agencies. A Public Liaison Committee
(PLC) consisting of twelve members, including the Ward Councillor, was established
with the following objectives:
· Communicate and
transfer information between the public and the Project Team;
· Assist the Project
Team in ensuring public awareness and input is achieved; and
· Assist in
development of alternative evaluation criteria.
Public and government agency consultation included the following
events:
· Eight PLC meetings;
· Three public
meetings; and
· Reponses to
numerous telephone/email inquiries.
Specifically, the public and government agency consultation process
involved the following activities in chronological order:
1. Initial Project
notification – Announcement of Public Open House No.1
2. Public Open House
No. 1 (February 19, 2004) – Problem definition and solicitation for PLC
membership;
3. PLC Applications
received, reviewed and members selected;
4. PLC Meeting No. 1a
(March 17, 2004) – Discussed Class Environmental Assessment process, project
objectives, overview of potential conceptual leachate and contaminated
groundwater management alternatives and distribution of draft Comment Sheet;
5. PLC Meeting No. 1b
(March 31, 2004) – Discussed alternative treatment concepts, evaluation
criteria and revised Comment Sheet;
6. Public Open
House/Meeting No. 2 (April 14, 2004) – Formal presentation of conceptual
management alternatives and distribution of Comment Sheet;
7. PLC Meeting No. 2a
(April 28, 2004) – Qualitative review of preliminary Comment Sheet responses;
8. PLC Meeting No. 2b
(May 5, 2004) – Presentation of short list of management alternatives,
quantitative review of Comment Sheet responses and discussion on approach to
alternatives risk evaluation;
9. PLC Meeting No. 2c
(May 19, 2004) – Utilization of Comment Sheet responses, incorporation of
utility value assignments and application of the evaluation matrices;
10. PLC Meeting No. 3a
(June 1, 2004) – Announcement of change in nature and scope of groundwater
containment and treatment at the Nepean Landfill;
11. PLC Meeting No. 3b
(June 21, 2004) – Inform PLC of the City’s strategy to manage the newly defined
Nepean Landfill contaminated groundwater plume under a Certificate of Approval
amendment;
12. PLC Meeting No. 4
(October 20, 2004) – Present list of alternatives reviewed, discussion of
utility value assignments, preliminary identification of preferred alternatives
(Alternatives 4 and 6), comparison of preliminary preferred alternatives; and
13. Public Open
House/Meeting No. 3 (October 26, 2004) – Presentation of preferred alternative
(Alternative 6 – Pipeline) and responses to questions from attendees.
Government agencies contacted during this project included the
Ministry of the Environment (Ottawa District Office and Kingston Regional
Office), Ministry of Natural Resources (Kemptville District Office), Ministry
of Tourism and Recreation (Ottawa
District Office), Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Kingston Regional
Office), Ministry of Transportation (Kingston Regional Office),
Environment Canada, Rideau Valley
Conservation Authority, City of Ottawa (Director Real Property Asset
Management; Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals; Director of
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure; Director of Infrastructure Services;
Director of Utility Services; Medical Officer of Health; Program Manager Waste
Diversion and Processing.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
Currently Capital Account #900339, Trail Road
Landfill Leachate, has $3.046M available for this project. Additional funding will be identified in the
appropriate capital budget.
The projected total cost for the Re-opening of the Trail Road
Landfill Leachate and Nepean Landfill Contaminated Groundwater Environmental
Assessment is $370,300.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Table 1 - Alternative Cost Summary
Figure 1 - Preferred Alternative - Pipeline Route 6
Figure 2 - Second Alternative - On-site Leachate and Groundwater
Treatment Facilities
DISPOSITION
Upon approval by Council, staff will proceed to file
the Environmental Study Report and implement the recommendation(s).
TRAIL
ROAD LANDFILL LEACHATE AND NEPEAN LANDFILL CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER -
RE-OPENING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
LIXIVIAT DE LA DÉCHARGE DU CHEMIN TRAIL ET EAUX
SOUTERRAINES CONTAMINÉES DU SITE D'ENFOUISSEMENT DE NEPEAN - RÉOUVERTURE DU
PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE
Prior to a presentation and consideration of this item, Councillor
Harder presented a Motion.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT
Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) recommend the second place
alternative, on-site treatment, for the leachate and contaminated groundwater
at the Trail Road and Nepean Landfill sites.
R.T. Leclair, Deputy City Manager,
Public Works and Services (PWS), Richard Hewitt, Director, Infrastructure
Services, PWS, Lloyd Russell, City Treasurer, Ted Woytowich, Project Manager,
Infrastructure Services, PWS, Wayne Bennett, Manager, Construction Service,
Infrastructure Services, PWS, Greg Ferraro, Project Manager and Partner,
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Mike Benson, Senior Environmental Planner
and Manager, Ottawa Office, Conestoga-Rovers & Associations, George Godin,
Manager of Environmental Design Service and Partner, Conestoga-Rovers &
Associates, and Dr. Earl Shannon, (expertise – membrane treatment technology)
Partner, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 9 November 2004. Some of the main points raised by the
presenters and not contained in the PowerPoint presentation are outlined
below. A copy of the presentation is on
file with the City Clerk.
·
Commenced in 1991 when stage 3 – the
first line section of the Trail Road Landfill commenced operation. It was then recognized that there would be a
need to deal with excess leachate in the future. In 1995 the Environmental Assessment (EA) on leachate management
recommended periodic removal of leachate to a central treatment facility by a
dedicated pipeline to a Regional or City sewer. At that time no pipeline route was identified.
·
1997 – Design work commenced on
pipeline.
·
1998 – Barrhaven residents raised
concern relative to a pipeline in their community. Following a public meeting it was agreed the pipeline option
would be re-evaluated. A third party
was retained to re-evaluate options, with the recommendation that the preferred
option was off-site conveyance by pipeline to the Robert O. Pickard
Environmental Centre (ROPEC) for treatment and disposal.
·
1999 – Council approved a public
consultation and route selection process, which lead (in the following year) to
a westerly pipeline from the Trail Road Landfill site. Council did not agree and selected an
easterly route to the Stonebridge Pumping Station.
·
December 2002 – Design team retained
to begin the pipeline design.
·
July 2003 – Council directed staff to
re-open the EA process and in December 2003 the City retained the firm of Conestoga-Rovers & Associates. October 26, 2004 the recommended solution
was a pipeline east on Cambrian to Jockvale and north on Jockvale to tie into
the future South Nepean collector.
·
Challenge for the Class EA Study was
to develop a preferred alternative for the long-term management strategy for
Trail Road Landfille leachate and Nepean Landfill contaminated groundwater.
·
Leachate is a very common urban
effluent; literally generated in every municipality across Canada and North
America. In fact, leachate is generated
at multiple locations in most municipalities and is neither foreign nor unique
to this community. The leading
alternatives have been identified as a pipeline for the treatment of these
effluents at the ROPEC Wastewater Treatment Facility or on-site treatment. If the ROPEC facility is chosen as the
preferred alternative, identified by the study, the treated effluent will
discharge to the Ottawa River. If
on-site treatment is selected, then the treated effluent will discharge to the
Jock River. Regardless of the decision,
the leachate must leave the landfill; it cannot remain on the site.
·
As part of the Class EA process, a
public consultation program was executed, that entailed 3 public open houses, 2
of which provided presentations to the public and 9 Public Liaison Committee
(PLC) meetings. The PLC meetings
consisted of simple information transfer meetings to extended and comprehensive
workshops.
·
Evaluation criteria were established
as part of the EA process. The criteria
were selected from the Class EA guidance documents and consist of 5 primary
evaluation criteria in addition to sub-criteria, as outlined in the
presentation (Natural Environment, Land Use, Social Environment, Facility Cost
and System Performance). Weighting
factors were then established through comment sheets provided to the public,
the PLC and the Technical Team. 85
comment sheets were completed; 71 by the public, 9 by the PLC and 5 by the
Technical Team. The weighting factors
were then used in the evaluation of the alternatives. From that evaluation, 8 short-listed management alternatives were
identified, which were summarized on the slides provided. 2 were identified as leading alternatives;
one of which is identified as the preferred.
The 2 leading alternatives are alternative #4, which is leachate treated
on-site with the discharge to the Jock River; and, alternative #6, which is
leachate and contaminated groundwater piped to ROPEC with discharge to the
Ottawa River.
·
The comparison and assessment of the
alternatives identified various advantages and disadvantages on a comparative
basis. A summary of that comparison was
provided for alternative #4 and alternative #6.
·
The capital cost to build the pipeline
to discharge the leachate to ROPEC is lower.
·
The operation and maintenance costs
for each management system are similar on an annual basis.
·
The energy use for a pipeline is lower
relative to on-site treatment.
·
The ease of operation is simpler for
the pipeline relative to on-site treatment.
Operating experience – pipeline vs. a treatment facility is higher for
pipelines.
·
Sensitivity to the changes in the
chemistry of the leachate are better handled by the pipeline than by on-site
treatment; that is because the leachate and groundwater flow to ROPEC
constitutes 0.1% of the flow, so fluctuations in the leachate and groundwater
chemistry will be less realized by ROPEC than by an on-site treatment facility
dedicated solely to the treatment of the leachate and groundwater. The level of treatment will be higher with
on-site treatment vs. that offered at the ROPEC facility, but it is very
important to realize both facilities will achieve the discharge criteria for
the receiving water course. Due to the
sensitivity of the Jock River it is required to treat the leachate and
contaminated groundwater at a higher level, preparatory to discharge to the
Jock River than it is to the Ottawa River.
·
Construction disruption – none to the
community for the on-site treatment; some for construction of the pipeline on
the roadways leading from the Landfill.
·
Alternative Cost Summary – these are
broken down into 3 categories – Capital costs; Total Annual Operating,
Maintenance and Replacement Costs for One year (O & M); and, 60-Year Total
Present Worth Costs, which includes the capital and the 60-year operating costs
in present worth dollars.
·
Capital Cost includes the direct
construction costs of the facilities, contractor, overhead and profits;
construction contingencies were included for those items that could be priced
accurately at this time; engineering and administration costs; and, owners’
fees were included in the capital costs.
·
O & M costs included labour of
operation for facilities, power requirements to operate the facilities,
chemical costs used where applicable and annual reporting for performance, site
maintenance and site utility costs; any analytical, laboratory costs were
included in the annual operating costs; and, replacement and maintenance costs
for the facilities. A good portion of
the O & M costs did include the replacement costs and in comparing
alternatives you would want to investigate the renewal of the infrastructure
and replacement costs over the life-cycle costs.
·
Alternative #4 (on-site treatment) –
the Capital Cost (all costs included) is $8.2 Million. The first year O & M cost is $604,000;
and, the 60-year present worth cost is $21.8 Million.
·
Alternative #6 (pipeline) - Capital
Cost is $3.8 Million; O & M cost of $590,000; and, a 60-year life cycle
cost of $17.1 Million. The pipeline
cost includes the cost for treatment at ROPEC.
·
On-Site Treatment Scheme – There are 2
facilities; one would treat the Nepean contaminated groundwater, which is a
small treatment facility consisting of air stripping that would treat volatile
organic compounds (VOC’s) from the Nepean Landfill. The slide illustrated the complexity of on-site treatment. It is an advanced treatment scheme that
would involve preliminary treatment that covers metal and solids removal,
softens the water and removes the hardness required to maintain the processes
downstream. Since there is the
requirement to meet very stringent effluent objectives to discharge to the Jock
River, the surface water, in meeting the Provincial water quality objectives, would
require advanced treatment that would require the removal of total dissolved
solids and any trace volatile organics, which would require additional
processes that could be granular filtration, reverse osmosis or
absorption. The technology applied are
all known and proven; the combination of the technologies creates a complex
treatment plant. This plant is not
readily available off the shelf and would need to be designed appropriately to
meet the waste water it is to treat.
·
The degree of treatment is driven by
the receiving water (Jock River); not the strength of the leachate. The main challenge is to reach the total
phosphorous level of .03mg/litre to discharge into the Jock River, which is a
very stringent objective.
·
The next slide illustrated the
location of the following:
·
The existing pump station that
transfers leachate out of the Nepean Landfill to ROPEC (now hauled by vehicle)
–roughly where the on-site treatment facility would be located for the
leachate.
·
A small treatment plant consisting of
air stripping to remove the volatile organics.
That would actually treat the contaminated groundwater at 3
litres/second, discharge it to some surface ponds that would infiltrate into
the groundwater.
·
The leachate treatment plant would
discharge its effluent through surface ditches off the property along Cambrian
Road out to the Jock River through surface and water ditches.
·
The next slide presented the pipeline
option, which illustrated ROPEC. The
pipeline option would include a pump station at the landfills with an oversized
wet well with some aeration facilities to conduct preliminary release of
volatile organics in the wetwell and pump in by pipeline to the collection
system that would flow by gravity to ROPEC.
The on-site treatment would provide a higher level of treatment, by
treating water to a much higher level to discharge to the Jock River. ROPEC meets secondary treatment objectives
to discharge to the Ottawa River. Mr.
Godin pointed out the area of the main lift station for trunk sewers conveying
waste water to ROPEC. It is pumped to preliminary
treatment facilities that contain odour; ROPEC has granular activated carbon
treating their odours; from there it flows by gravity to primary sedimentation
facilities – 15 large tanks that remove primary sedimentation. These are covered for odour control. It flows by gravity to the aeration
facilities and following aeration to secondary sedimentation and out through
chlorine disinfection and then to the Ottawa River. There are also digestion facilities so that residuals removed
from the liquid are treated through anaerobic digestion, hauled, de-watered and
then disposed off site.
·
The opportunity for aligning the
pipeline routes was also evaluated as part of this Class EA; all potential
routes evaluated in the past were now back on the table in terms of their
availability and potential to be recipients of pipeline routes. A total of 8 potential pipeline routes were
identified, which were assessed relative to their impact on the environment
during their development, whether they be during construction; i.e.
construction issues or disruption during construction, proximity of residential
dwellings to the pipeline route and other social and natural environment
factors. Identified 2 very closely
competing routes (routes 5 and 6), which will involve a pipeline route coming
from the landfill along Cambrian Road to Jockvale and either up Jockvale to a
point just south of the Jock River (route 6) or south to a point at Golflinks
Drive. Of the 2 routes, route 6 was
preferred on the basis that it affected fewer residential dwellings. The Stonebridge subdivision is on the east
side of Jockvale Road. The opportunity
for route 6 was occasioned by the construction of this sewer, which is the
South Nepean collector due to be completed in 2005. The tie-in for route 6 would be the South Nepean collector just
south of the Jock River.
·
Mr. Hewitt provided a brief summary of
the technical work undertaken. Staff
undertook a very detailed and comprehensive evaluation in accordance with the
guidelines of the Class EA Process. The
preferred alternative arrived at is the pipeline. It is acknowledged that out of the initial 12 alternative, eight
were reviewed in detail and 2 were ranked extremely close, as identified in the
report. There is a numerical ranking of
9.3 for the pipeline and 9 for the on-site solution. In that vein, it is acknowledged from a technical perspective the
2 alternatives compete very strongly.
Both have strengths and weaknesses, but on balance through this process
come out to a tie. The one factor that
staff could not ignore and struggled with is the cost component. These are preliminary estimates and staff is
looking at a cost differential of a 2 to 1 factor of $4+ Million between the 2. On that basis, staff is coming forward with
a straightforward technical recommendation.
Staff would now be moving into the Environmental Study Report stage.
·
Historically, the initial routing as
defined (middle 2002) and early 2003, was through the Stonebridge community to
an existing pump station. At that time,
the route depicted as the preferred alternative was unavailable because the
South Nepean collector was at a planning stage. It is now known that collector will be built in 2005 and
therefore is an available outlet. That
allows for the pipeline routing to be up Jockvale Road to the collector as
opposed to travelling through the heart of the Stonebridge community.
·
If the on-site solution is the
preferred alternative by Committee and Council, there are additional
steps. There would be surface discharge
to the Jock River, facilitated by a ditch running between the landfill and Jock
River. The City would advise residents
and landowners along that route, with an additional public meeting. That would be required to move forward to
the Environmental Study Report determination.
·
In terms of implementation, clearly
there is an Environmental Study Report to complete. There is the possibility, with any alternative and through the EA
Process, now referred to as Part 2 Orders, formerly known as Bump Up Requests,
which have to be considered by the Ministry and unfortunately certainly take a
fair period of time for final determination.
Once there is final approval, if it is on-site, 2 treatment facilities
would be undertaken; one for leachate and one for contaminated
groundwater. It was anticipated to have
the contaminated groundwater facility operational within one year of final MOE
approval. The leachate treatment would
take significantly longer; in the range of 2½–years to be operational. With regard to a pipeline solution, the time
frame was in the range of 1½ years.
Prior to any questions of staff, Chair Hume received confirmation
that from a technical perspective, either option is acceptable for Committee to
pursue. The staff recommendation is
based on cost. Staff had no alternative
but to recommend the lowest cost.
For the record, Councillor Harder complimented those involved in
this issue, particularly the staff involved over the last 7 years.
The aforementioned individuals responded to questions posed by
Committee members, with the main points summarized below.
·
The effluent requirements (Provincial
Water Quality Objectives) for discharge to the Jock River are very stringent;
particularly stringent is the phosphorous requirement (0.03mg/litre). The City should undertake some treatability
studies to demonstrate it can meet this level on a consistent basis. Dr. Shannon has been involved with
phosphorous removal technologies for 30 years and 0.03 is very difficult to
meet. That is the main factor in the
time frame. This requirement is due to
the highly sensitive Jock River.
·
On the comparison of leachate to
sewage, the Trail Road Landfill leachate’s main contaminants are Biological
Oxygen Demand (BOD), Ammonia, total phosphorous. Metals levels are very low in this leachate and very comparable
to what would be seen in raw sewage entering a domestic waste water treatment
facility. There are 2 or 3 Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) at levels above the current by-law limit for discharge
to municipal sewer systems, but in general the leachate would be classified as
stronger than domestic sewage with respect to BOD and Ammonia, comparable on
metals and slightly higher VOC concentrations.
Leachate is around 1,700 BOD vs. domestic waste water at around 300 BOD. The component of the advanced treatment
system for on-site would be designed to achieve the low levels of phosphorous
needed and also to remove a certain amount of the total dissolved solids. The advanced treatment is not seen at ROPEC.
·
EA criteria and sub-criteria were
taken directly from the Municipal Engineers Association Class EA Guidance
document. They are not unique to this
particular study and are used in EAs throughout the Province. The consultants attempted to determine which
of the primary and sub-criteria applied in this particular instance and in
terms of deriving the weights on each of the primary and sub-criteria,
solicited the public for their preferences vis-à-vis natural environment, land
use, social environment, facility cost and system performance. PLC was also solicited as part of this
exercise. PLC primarily represented the
communities of Stonebridge and Barrhaven.
They also solicited the Project Team and collectively arrived at a
combined weighted average on each of the primary and sub-criteria using all the
responses. The weighting was as
follows: Facility Cost – 10%; Natural
Environment – 26%; Land use – 13%; Social Environment – 33%; and System
performance – 17%.
·
Alternatives and Cost Summary – The
listing of criteria was not in any order of importance. It simply demonstrated the differences
between alternative 4 and 6 under each item.
The cost with the entire valuation of alternatives (cost and the system
performance) carried a weight of 27% out of 100%. In reality the cost was 10%, which is typically low and the
system performance was 17%, but that was based on the information received from
comment sheets from the public. More
emphasis was placed on Social Environment, Land Use and the Natural Environment
for the evaluation.
·
Implications for the City’s Capital
Budget, if the on-site treatment was approved – the financial comment
identified the project balance remaining in that account is $3 Million. Regardless of the option chosen, there will
be a requirement for additional funding.
If Committee/Council chooses the on-site option, the additional funding
requirement is slightly over $5 Million.
Staff is currently finalizing the 2005 Capital Budget Estimates and
there is insufficient funding for all the planned projects. If Committee wishes this project to proceed,
one option would be that other identified projects would drop off. The other option would be that Council could
direct the City Treasurer to look for alternative funding to finance the
project, as the construction becomes available and not impact planned projects
in the 2005 list, look for Debt funding or look for reductions in the Minimum
Capital Reserve Balances that Council has directed.
·
Councillor Holmes would be looking at
a Motion to not bump off other items on the Capital Budget to bring this one
forward. Some areas have been waiting
20 years for a specific item on that Capital Budget. The Councillor sought a list of options that do not allow for
bump offs. At the request of Chair
Hume, Ms. Leclair and Mr. Russell would endeavour to prepare appropriate
wording for such a Motion. Councillor
Harder agreed such wording would be a friendly amendment.
·
Historically municipalities have
chosen the pipeline option on specific projects the consultants have worked
with. That is not to say it represents
a general trend in Ontario or Canadian municipalities. It is very specific to the environmental
setting, the availability of municipal infrastructure to deal with the
management of leachate and the requirements/desire of that community. Pipelines have been built as part of
municipal infrastructure since the turn of the century and earlier. The on-site leachate treatment facilities commenced
in the mid-1980s. The first one their
company was involved with was in 1987, constructed in 1988 (Sarnia, Ontario).
·
The on-site treatment facility in
Sarnia has access to a large body of water and does not need to meet the
phosphorus limitation. Other facilities
have been completed since Sarnia, which need to meet low phosphorus levels, but
not 0.03. Very few faculties must meet
0.03. Those limits are achievable
technically, but usually require some form of membrane, very fine filtration
process to achieve that level consistently.
The evaluation of pipeline breaks has been considered in this
project. Groundwater travels a distance
of inches to feet per year. Pipeline
breaks, should one occur, will result in a very localized plume around the pipe
itself. The majority of material
contained in the pipe would flow up and down the pipe trench itself since it is
a granular filled trench and liquid would follow the path of least
resistance. The presence of leachate
constituents in the groundwater would then dissipate over a period of time
ranging from months to potentially a couple of years or simply be removed
during the repair operation.
·
There is one other leachate pipeline
that originates from the Carp Road Landfill site. That pipeline travels down Carp Road into the Stittsville area
and is connected to the City’s sewer system at that location. It is eventually treated at ROPEC. The funding for this particular project is
within the city-wide funding since this is not suitable for charges to the
water or sewer rate; leachate is part of the solid waste aspect of the environment
and would arise out of tax-supported funding.
Chair Hume noted the following Motion and amendment:
Moved by
Councillor J. Harder:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Planning and Environment
Committee (PEC) recommend the second place alternative, on-site treatment, for
the leachate and contaminated groundwater at the Trail Road and Nepean Landfill
sites.
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:
That Councillor
Harder’s Motion be amended by the following:
And
that funding in Capital Account #900339, Trail Road Landfill Leachate, be
increased to $8.2 million to provide for the construction of the on-site
Facility.
And that the City
Treasurer be directed to identify a source of funding as the moneys are
required, that would not otherwise impact the planned 2005 Capital program.
Chair Hume indicated the Committee was at the point where it could
receive public delegations, but found itself in a rather unique situation in
that there was unanimity on the Motion, as amended, except for the fact that
Councillor Cullen wanted an opportunity to speak to the matter. There were 21 speakers on the Motion, the
majority of which support Councillor Harder’s Motion. Delegations had a right to speak, but if the delegations did not
want to speak, but simply indicate their support to have the Committee approve
the Motion, they would be registered and their written comments would still
form part of the public record. The
Chair would proceed through the forms presented and receive the comments, but
any individual who wanted to speak, would be heard.
The Committee heard from the following delegations:
Larry Moulds was present and agreed with
the Motion. Mr. Moulds provided a
written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Lisa Hopkyns-Hatt was present and agreed
with the Motion.
Wendy Duross was present and agreed with
the Motion. Ms. Duross provided a
written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Don Duross was present and agreed with
the Motion. Mr. Duross provided a written
submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Michael Phalen, President, Stonebridge Community Association, was present and agreed with the Motion.
Karen Fowlie was present and agreed with
the Motion.
Keith Preston was present and agreed
with the Motion. Mr. Preston provided a
written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Gary J. Hollink was present and agreed
with the Motion. Mr. Hollink provided a
written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Shawn Ryan was present and agreed with
the Motion. Mr. Ryan provided a written
submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Bruce Webster, Vice-President, Richmond Village Association, was present and agreed with the Motion. Mr. Webster provided a written submission that was circulated and
is held on file with the City Clerk.
Lori Singleton was present and agreed
with the Motion.
Lesley Horwitz-Beare was present and
agreed with the Motion.
Joanne Taylor was present and agreed
with the Motion. Ms. Taylor provided a
written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Brian Finch, President, Friends of the Jock River, was present and agreed with the Motion. Mr. Finch provided a written submission that was circulated and
is held on file with the City Clerk.
Richard Bendall was present and agreed
with the Motion. Mr. Bendall provided a
written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Randy Yu was present and agreed with the
Motion.
Patrice Meloshe was present and agreed
with the Motion. Ms. Meloshe provided a
written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Mary Elin Moore, on behalf of the Public Liaison Committee (PLC) was present and agreed with the Motion. Ms. Moore provided a comprehensive written submission that was
circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk, along with a PowerPoint
Presentation that is also held on file.
Dennis Pharoah attended the last public
consultation meeting and was interested in the delay. He became aware of the pipeline awhile ago, listened to the
presentation and opined the pipeline was a very good idea, based on that presentation. He did not understand why PEC did not agree
with the staff recommendation. One
community is expressing a fear should the pipeline break, but should trust the
City to construct a proper pipeline, which is also taking place in West Carleton
and Orleans. If it is good enough for
the remainder of the City, not to mention all of the other landfill sites, then
why is it not good enough for this area?
The pipeline makes significantly more economic sense in his opinion. As far as the environment, staff is saying
they have never conducted a 0.03. They
are saying give us enough money and we’ll attempt to make it work. What if it does not work? The chemistry can change from day to
day. Then the City will be discarding
into the river. If they cannot trust a
pipeline, does the community really want the City constructing a sewage
treatment plant and discarding this material into the river next to the
community? The O & M costs are the
same for both systems. He would rather
have the additional funds used to improve ROPEC and maintain sewer costs, than
to serve one large landfill site. If
the City is going to construct this facility, why not pipe all the other
landfill sites into this facility for the good of the entire community.
It was presented the pipeline will be operational in 1½ years, but
it will take 3 years for the on-site and it may or may not work. The NCC representatives posited at the
public meeting that they did not agree with the processes espoused by the
consultants and that they would not work.
The Councillor pre-empted that debate and asked if attendees were in
favour of on-site or off-site. We’ll
worry about the details once we start spending the money. How many residents are being placed at risk
by delays due to “good intentions” while trucks continue (every 20 minutes)
crossing the City endangering the public’s health. What if 0.03 is not achievable, requiring the trucks to
continue? The cost could be
astronomical. The leachate will simply
follow along the pipeline if there is a problem; leachate is better than raw
sewage. It was recently announced the
City is short $6 Million in 2004. Why
spend a fortune trying to put tap water into a polluted river.
In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Pharoah had a
problem in that the City was not doing anything to treat other landfill
sites. Municipal sewage is more toxic
and a greater danger than leachate and the City would more appropriately spend
funds improving ROPEC for the entire community than correcting the problem in
this one community. No one has provided
information on the quality of the water in the Jock River. The intention is good; if the City will test
the Jock River before and after this treatment centre.
Councillor Cullen noted one of the points made by Mr. Pharoah is
that the City should be appropriately improving the treatment process at
ROPEC. He had understood the City has
identified a capital project to move from secondary to tertiary treatment at
ROPEC within the City’s long term financial plan, which he would pursue
separately with staff.
The following correspondence was circulated and is held on file with
the City Clerk in support of the On-site Treatment Plant:
·
Iola Price, Chair, Ottawa Forests and
Greenspace Advisory Committee.
·
E-mail dated 22 November from Imran
Mirza.
·
Letter dated 22 November from Patrice
Meloshe and Elmer Tumak.
·
Letter dated 22 November from Shawn
Ryan and Jo-Ann Taylor.
·
E-mail dated 22 November from
Christopher Krasilczuk.
·
Memorandum dated 22 November from the
Coordinator, Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) containing a resolution
from EAC.
·
Letter dated 20 November from Brian
Finch, President, Friends of the Jock River.
·
Petition signed by the following
individuals
