|
M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E |
|
|
M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E |
|
|
To /
Destinataire |
Mayor and
Members of the Environmental Services Committee/Maire et members du Comité
des services de l’environnement |
File/N° de
fichier: ACS2002-TUP-INF-0001-IPD |
|
From / Expéditeur |
R.T. Leclair,
General Manager/Directrice générale, Transportation, Utilities and Public
Works/Transport, services et travaux publics |
Contact/Personne-resource : Richard
Hewitt, Director of Infrastructure Services/Directeur des services et travaux
publics 580-2424 ext. 21268 Richard.hewitt@city.ottawa.on.ca |
|
Subject /
Objet |
Munster
Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility: Re-Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives
– Consultant Selection/ Installation d’épuration de l’eau usée de Munster
Hamlet : réévaluation des options de traitement – selection d’un consultant |
Date: 5 February 2002/le 5 février 2002 |
DISCUSSION
The Department, with the assistance of Supply Management, distributed a Request for Proposal (RFP) to four consultants in October 2001. The consultants selected to submit proposals are experienced in the environmental engineering field and have in-depth knowledge of the Environmental Assessment process, wastewater treatment technologies and municipal infrastructure systems. The firms had no previous involvement in this matter.
The review
and evaluation of the proposals were completed according to a ranking system
outlined in the RFP. Each proposal was
evaluated on the basis of experience of the firm, experience and qualifications
of key team members, understanding of the objectives, approaches and
methodologies to complete the assignment, availability, ability to conduct the
work and cost. Based on the evaluation,
R.V. Anderson Associates Limited ranked highest overall.
R.V. Anderson Associates Limited, in their submission, identified the need to address liability issues associated with undertaking the assignment. This was based on their thorough understanding of the assignment, which involves the assessment of proprietary technologies and work completed by other consulting engineering firms. As a result, a modification to the work plan was proposed by R.V. Anderson and Associates Limited, to include a risk management component. The purpose of the risk management component is to ensure the re-evaluation process is completed in such a manner to determine the most appropriate solution and to protect the interests of the City and our consultant. The Department, in consultation with Supply Management and Legal Services, concurs that employing a risk management strategy is appropriate in this complex assignment.
The risk management component was finalized and associated costs identified. The proposal submitted by R.V. Anderson Associates Limited was re-evaluated, based on the additional costs, and remained the highest-ranking proposal of the three submissions. The Department is confident that R.V. Anderson Associates Limited are the most qualified for this assignment and has proceeded to award the assignment to them in the amount of $162,827, which includes a provision for variations and G.S.T.
The assignment by R. V. Anderson and Associates Limited should be completed by late summer 2002. A report outlining the findings and recommendations will be prepared for submission and consideration, by Committee and Council.
CONSULTATION
All public consultation required as part of the Environmental Assessment process has been undertaken to date. The Ward Councillor has been kept advised during the implementation of the Action Plan. The plan includes soliciting input from the proponents, Conestoga-Rovers and Associates Ltd., other concerned individuals, groups and the Ward Councillor.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
Funds are available in the 2001 Capital Budget, Order No. 90021, Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility.
The Department is entering into an agreement with R.V. Anderson Associates Limited to complete the re-evaluation of the three alternatives for the Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility, in accordance with the approved Action Plan.
Report to Environmental Services Committee and Council, July 2001
Report to/Rapport au:
Environmental Services Committee/
Comité des services de l’environnement
and Council/et au Conseil
10 July 2001/ le 10 juillet 2001
Submitted by/Soumis par: R.T. Leclair, General Manager/Directrice générale
|
: |
|
Ref N°:
ACS2001-TUP-INF-0014 |
SUBJECT: MUNSTER
HAMLET WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
ACTION PLAN
OBJECT: PLAN D’ACTION POUR L’INSTALLATION D’ÉPURATION
DE
L’EAU USÉE DE MUNSTER HAMLET
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That
Environmental Services Committee recommend Council approve the Action Plan
presented in this report to comply with the decision rendered by the Ontario
Municipal Board regarding the Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment facility.
RECOMMENDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité des services de l’environnement
recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver le plan d’action exposé dans le
présent rapport afin de se conformer à la décision rendue par la Commission des
affaires municipales de l’Ontario en ce qui a trait à l’installation
d’épuration de l’eau usée de Munster Hamlet.
BACKGROUND
Over the past several years, the existing sewage
treatment system for Munster Hamlet has been experiencing higher than projected
flows. During extended wet weather periods in the spring, wastewater in the
lagoons has reached critically high levels. In addition, there are significant
concerns with the integrity of the lagoon cells. Leakage has been documented by
both City staff and through various reports that have been prepared over the
past several years.
In the early stages of this work, there was some concern
that the leaking lagoons were impacting adjacent properties. Of particular
concern were the private wells in the areas surrounding the lagoons. An investigation was conducted and it was
determined that there were no impacts on adjacent wells.
There are currently several monitoring wells around the
lagoons that are tested quarterly by the Utility Services Branch. The two
Communal wells, which feed from a deeper aquifer, are directly across the
street, are tested weekly and have shown no signs of any problems to date.
The interim remedial actions currently being taken include
the monitoring of groundwater in the areas adjacent to the lagoons, hauling of
excess sewage to the R.O. Pickard Environmental Centre to ensure adequate
capacity is maintained in the lagoons and with the approval of the Ministry of
the Environment, an extension to the period of time that spraying on the fields
is permitted. In addition to all of the
above, staff have increased the level of maintenance on all equipment
associated with this facility to decrease the likelihood of an equipment failure
having any adverse effects on the surrounding environment.
The consulting firm, Totten Sims Hubicki
Associates were originally retained to complete an engineering study to
evaluate the various options for the upgrade of the existing sewage treatment
system. During the initial
pre-screening of potential solutions, it was determined that a detailed impact
assessment of the alternatives on the environment would be required. The assessment was conducted to satisfy the
Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources general guidelines
with respect to water quality, public health and vegetation and wildlife
protection. In accordance with the
requirements as set out in the Class Environmental Assessment Act for Municipal
Water and Wastewater projects it was determined that this work would be
evaluated as a Schedule “C” project.
The
resulting Environmental Study Report (ESR) was completed in January 1996 and
was placed on the public record for its thirty day review period on February 7,
1996. As a result of the public review,
there were eight requests from local residents for a “Bump-Up” to an Individual
Environmental Assessment. These
requests were reviewed extensively by the Environmental Assessment Branch of
the M.O.E. who determined that an individual environmental assessment was not
required in this instance as “ The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has
followed the approved planning and design process outlined in the Municipal
Engineers Association’s Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Water and
Wastewater Projects, which included public consultation and adequate
notification.”
With this ruling having been made, work on the preliminary and detailed design began. In early 1998, with design work approximately 80-85% complete, the matter was brought before Council for discussion.
On 11 March 1998 the former Regional Council directed that
“Further that staff be directed
to enter into an agreement, to be awarded by the CAO, with a qualified
independent consultant to prepare an addendum to the Munster Wastewater Treatment
Plant ESR, that properly and accurately reflects the Delta Snowfluent
combination Intermittent Filtration proposal as an alternative to Spray
Irrigation, as well as any other proposal that meets the requirements outlined
in the final paragraph of the Committee recommendation, for submission to the
RMOC and appropriate authorities”
Subsequent to this meeting, and after consultation with the
proponents, the firm of Conestoga-Rovers and Associates (CRA) was retained as
the independent consultant. They
prepared a detailed work plan that included extensive public consultation and
presented it to a team that included representatives from the Township of
Goulbourn, Regional Council, Legal Department, and the Engineering Division of
the RMOC. All parties agreed that it
was a complete and comprehensive action plan that should be implemented as
quickly as possible.
In October 1998, the final report was submitted to the
RMOC. It recommended that a pipeline be
constructed to connect Munster Hamlet to the Regional collection system. Council supported this recommendation.
CRA’s evaluation of alternatives was conducted in such a
manner that, should the results be different from the original ESR, the work
undertaken could form the basis of an addendum to the original ESR. Such an
addendum is required under the guidelines of the Class Environmental Assessment
process for Schedule ‘C’ projects.
Accordingly, an addendum was filed on 25 May 1999. There were several
“Bump-up” requests that were reviewed in detail by the Ministry’s staff. All were subsequently rejected. The ruling by the Ministry indicated that
all of the requirements of Class E.A. process had been followed and that as far
as the Ministry was concerned, a pipeline solution was acceptable.
As part of the implementation of the pipeline alternative
it was necessary to obtain an amendment to the Official Regional Plan. Regional Council approved this Amendment on
12 May 1999. Several interested parties
subsequently appealed this decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. Hearings were held over several months from
March 2000 to July 2000.
On 8 June 2001, the Ontario Municipal Board released its
decision with respect to Amendment No. 5 to the Official Plan of the former
Region. Amendment No. 5 allowed for a
pipeline to provide wastewater servicing to Munster Hamlet.
The key part of the Board Member’s decision is as follows:
|
Schedule
H, Rural Servicing, is hereby amended as follows: a) Delete the symbol for a City communal lagoon located in Munster Hamlet as shown on Schedule “1” attached; and b) Add the symbol for a City communal wastewater facility located in Munster Hamlet as shown on Schedule “1” attached, which may be one of the following: (1) the pipeline; or (2) the mechanical treatment plan discharging to the Jock River (CMS); or (3) the Snowfluent provided the following a reevaluation of these alternatives, to the satisfaction of Council. The Board then advised the City to consider the following factors: 1. The City is advised to consider retaining a qualified person or persons who has or have not been associated with the project so far to undertake a reevaluation of the three treatment alternatives; 2. The City is advised to consider instructing the evaluating person/s to critically assess the Weighted Additive Method and employ it with modifications if necessary and if found appropriate, and assess the treatment alternatives; 3. The City is advised to consider instructing the evaluating person/s to also employ the standard qualitative assessment of merits and demerits of the alternatives; 4. The City is advised to consider instructing the evaluating person/s to seek facts and opinions from the interested people, the CRA, and the proponents of the treatment alternatives to ensure a thorough canvassing of all the facts and opinions and take account of them in both the quantitative and qualitative methods of evaluation, including an explanation why certain facts and opinions were disregarded; and 5. The City is advised to consider instructing the evaluating person/s to make a recommendation based upon both the quantitative and qualitative methods. |
From an Official Plan perspective (the environmental
assessment aspects are discussed below), the amendment as modified would permit
the installation of a pipeline, the CMS proposal or the Snowfluent proposal
with no further amendment to the Official Plan following a re-evaluation, to
the satisfaction of Council, of the three alternatives. It is significant to note that no mandatory
parameters for the review were set forth by the Board.
DISCUSSION
In the opinion of staff, there are questions of law upon
which the decision may be open to challenge.
As a result, Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, at
its meeting of 3 July 2001, confirmed the seeking of leave to appeal the
decision to Divisional Court.
However, in the event that leave should be granted, it is
not anticipated that the appeal will be heard until spring, 2002. The present lagoons and spray irrigation
fields in Munster are undersized and thus a revised means of wastewater
treatment should be implemented as soon as possible. Further, as long as the lagoons continue to leak, we are not in
compliance with our Certificate of Approval.
While the decision of the Board stated that there is no urgent need to
find a remedy, this is only due to the fact that since 1998, during the winter
and early spring, wastewater is hauled for treatment from Munster to the R.O.
Pickard Environmental Centre at an average annual cost of approximately
$500,000.
After reviewing the O.M.B. decision on Official Plan
Amendment No. 5, staff felt it was necessary to consult the M.O.E. and obtain
advice on dealing with the ruling to ensure that no provisions of The
Environmental Assessment Act were contravened.
Accordingly, staff wrote to the M.O.E. in order to obtain the Ministry’s
position.
The response from the Ministry was that the three options
not identified by the Ontario Municipal Board for further examination, which
were 1) the do nothing alternative; 2) lagoon treatment with spray irrigation;
and 3) mechanical treatment plant with treated discharge to groundwater; would,
notwithstanding the O.M.B. decision, have to be carried forward for comparison
purposes in any further evaluation. If
the criteria and weightings for the criteria remained constant, no further
evaluation for these three options would be required. However, if either the criteria or the weightings were changed,
any reevaluation would have to look at all six alternatives.
If this approach were necessary, we would then have to
initiate a completely new Environmental Assessment process. This work could take anywhere from 12 –18
months at an anticipated cost of approximately $300,000. In addition, there would likely be a
requirement an additional two years of wastewater hauling from the lagoons
during this period. This cost is
expected to be in excess of $1M
RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN
In accordance with our intent to meet the terms of the
O.M.B. decision while respecting the requirements of the Environmental
Assessment process, staff will prepare a Terms of Reference to undertake the
following tasks.
The Department will retain a consultant who has had no
involvement in this matter, to conduct an evaluation of the three alternatives
in question. Three consultants will be
requested to submit proposals. The
proposals will be evaluated with the consultant presenting the team with the
best combination of corporate experience, team depth and experience with the EA
process, being chosen for the assignment.
The successful consultant will undertake a review of the
appropriateness of the quantitative methods used in the preparation of the
addendum by CRA. These include the
Weighted Additive method as well as the Non-Parametric and Dominance
methods. There will also be a review of
the sensitivity analysis completed as part of CRA’s work.
The consultant will
also conduct a standard qualitative analysis that assesses the merits and
demerits of the various alternatives. A
complete review of all information and data that was available at the time of
the preparation of the addendum will be undertaken. The assignment will include the consultant soliciting input from
the proponents and CRA in order to ensure the completeness of the information
being reviewed.
A report will then be prepared for submission and
consideration by Council.
SUMMARY
In summary, notwithstanding the concerns of staff with
regard to the scope of the O.M.B. decision related to this project, it is
considered that the most expeditious course of action is to undertake the
necessary work to comply with that decision.
In essence, it is intended to carry out the review, as defined above, to
the satisfaction of City Council. This
will enable us to comply with the decision of the O.M.B. on Amendment No. 5 and
to proceed with addressing the needs of the current wastewater treatment
facility.
SCHEDULE
The Consultant Selection Process will begin in early
August. It is anticipated that the
Consultant’s work plan could take approximately four months to complete at a
cost of $50,000-$100,000.