1. HAULED LIQUID WASTE
STRATEGY REVIEW EXAMEN DE LA STRATÉGIE SUR LES DÉCHETS LIQUIDES
TRANSPORTÉS
|
Committee RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
That Council approve that:
1.
The City of Ottawa continue accepting hauled liquid
waste generated outside the City boundaries, with priority given to in-City
waste, until the impacts of the Nutrient Management Act, 2001 can be
quantified;
2.
The disposal fee for hauled liquid waste generated
within City boundaries be increased from $0.53 per cubic metre to $1.53 per
cubic metre, effective 01 July 2005, and by $1.00 per cubic metre annually
thereafter until the fee fully recovers treatment costs;
3.
The disposal fee for hauled liquid waste generated
outside City boundaries be increased from $9.21 per cubic metre to $19.92 per
cubic metre, effective 01 July 2005 and be revised annually to reflect current
data, including any inflationary effects;
4.
Disposal fees be set to include funding to upgrade and
maintain the hauled waste disposal facility, to alleviate environmental and
safety concerns;
5.
The hauled liquid waste monitoring program be increased
to include the analysis of 10% of the loads received, in keeping with Best
Management Practices;
6.
Disposal fees be set to include funding for the staff
to administer the Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy;
7.
The Sewer Use By-law be revised to reflect any change
in disposal fees; and
8.
Two full time positions be approved to provide for
appropriate auditing of the hauled liquid waste, funding to be provided by
revenues generated from the acceptance of imported waste, as outlined in this
report.
9. That staff examine future
transportation requirements in connection with the increasing truck traffic to
the Pickard Centre and determine the appropriate level of cost recovery through
disposal fees.
10. Therefore be it resolved that staff be directed to characterize the
hauled liquid waste disposed of at the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre
over the coming year to determine concentration of content and report back to
Planning and Environment Committee in the fall of 2006 with recommendations on
how to fairly reflect actual treatment costs to individual businesses.
RECOMMANDATIONS Modifiées DU Comité
Que le Conseil approuve ce qui suit :
1.
Que la Ville d’Ottawa continue
d’accepter les déchets liquides transportés provenant de l’extérieur des
limites de la Ville, la priorité étant accordée aux déchets produits sur le
territoire de la Ville, jusqu’à ce qu’il soit possible de quantifier les
répercussions de la Loi de 2001 sur la
gestion des éléments nutritifs.
2.
Que les droits d’élimination des
déchets liquides transportés produits sur le territoire de la Ville soient
portés de 0,53 $ le mètre cube à 1,53 $ le mètre cube à compter du 1er
juillet 2005 et qu’ils augmentent ensuite de 1 $ par mètre cube chaque
année, jusqu’au recouvrement intégral des coûts de traitement.
3.
Que les droits d’élimination des
déchets liquides transportés produits à l’extérieur des limites de la Ville
soient portés de 9,21 $ le mètre cube à 19,92 $ le mètre cube à compter
du 1er juillet 2005 et qu’ils soient révisés chaque année afin de
refléter les données en cours, y compris les effets inflationnistes.
4.
Que les droits d’élimination soient
fixés de façon à tenir compte des coûts de mise à niveau et d’entretien de
l’installation d’élimination des déchets transportés, afin d’atténuer les
préoccupations liées à l’environnement et à la sécurité.
5.
Que la portée du programme de
contrôle des déchets liquides transportés soit élargie de façon à assurer
l’analyse de 10 p. 100 des charges reçues, conformément aux pratiques
de gestion exemplaires.
6.
Que les droits d’élimination soient
fixés de façon à tenir compte de la rémunération du personnel chargé de
l’administration de la stratégie relative aux déchets liquides transportés.
7.
Que le Règlement municipal sur les
égouts soit révisé de façon à tenir compte des modifications apportées aux
droits d’élimination.
8.
Que
deux postes permanents soient établis afin d’effectuer les vérifications souhaitables des
déchets liquides transportés, le financement provenant des recettes générées
par l’acceptation des déchets importés, tel qu’il est souligné dans le présent
rapport.
9. Que le personnel examine les besoins
à venir de transport, compte tenu de la circulation accrue des camions au
Centre Pickard et détermine le niveau approprié de recouvrement des coûts par
l’intermédiaire des droits d’élimination.
10. Il est donc résolu
d’orienter le personnel pour qu’il détermine les caractéristiques des déchets
liquides transportés et éliminés au Centre environnemental
Robert O. Pickard l’an prochain, afin de déterminer la concentration
de la matière et de faire rapport au Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement à l’automne 2006, ainsi que des recommandations sur la
façon de présenter équitablement les coûts réels du traitement à des
entreprises distinctes.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager, Public
Works and Services report dated 14 December 2004
(ACS2004-TUP-UTL-0017).
2. Extract
of Draft Minutes, 10 May 2005.
DRAFT
#3
(30.07.03)Report to / Rapport au:
Planning
and EnvironmentEnvironmental
Services Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnementdes services de l’environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
2
August 2003 Octobe14
DecemberAugust 2004/ le 14
déecem2
aoûtaoustoctobre 20034
Submitted by/Soumis par: R.T. Leclair, Deputy
City General Manager / Directrice
municipale adjointeDirectrice générale
Directrice
générale
Transportation,
Utilities and Public Works
and Services /Transport,
Services et travaux publics
Contact/Personne-ressource: P.
McNally, : Kenneth J. Brothers, Director/Directeur
Utility Services Branch/Direction des services
publics
|
Ref
N°:
ACS2004 |
SUBJECT: HAULED LIQUID WASTE STRATEGY REVIEW
OBJET: EXAMEN DE LA STRATÉGIE
SUR LES DÉCHETS LIQUIDES TRANSPORTÉS
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That
the Planning and Environmental Services Committee recommend Council approve the followingat:
1.
The City of Ottawa continue
accepting hauled liquid waste generated outside the City boundaries,
with priority given to in-City waste, until the impacts of the Nutrient
Management Act, 2001
can be quantified;
for as long as the Robert O. Pickard
Environmental Centre can accommodate the
waste;
2.
The disposal fee for hauled
liquid waste generated within the City boundaries be increased from
$0.53 per cubic metre to $1.53 per cubic metre, effective
01 July 2005as
of
01 January 2005, and
by $1.00 per cubic metre annually thereafter until the fee fully recovers treatment costs;
3.
The disposal fee for hauled
liquid waste generated outside City boundaries be increased from
$9.21 per cubic metre to $19.92 per cubic metre,
effective as of
01 JanuarJulyy 2005 and be revised annually to reflect
current data, including any inflationary effects; and
1.
The Robert O. Pickard
Environmental Centre continues to be the only
location for the disposal of hauled liquid waste in the City; Staff be
directed to further investigate the implications of the proposed changes to the
Nutrient Management Act, 2001 prior to submitting a final report with
recommendations on the direction of the Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy;
4.
Disposal fees be set to include fundinga
levy to be set aside to upgrade
and maintain the hauled waste disposal facility, to alleviate environmental
and health and safety
concerns;
5.
The hauled liquid waste monitoring program be
increased to include the analysis of 10% of the loads received and that the
sources of the waste be sampled onsite, in keeping with Best
Management Practices;
6.
Disposal fees be set to
include funding for the staffing of an additional full time position
to deal with the
increas ed
workload resulting from the aadministeration of the Hauled Liquid Waste
Strategy;
7.
The
Sewer Use By-law be revised to reflect any
change in disposal fees; and
8.
Two
full time positions be approved to provide for appropriate auditing of the
hauled liquid waste, funding to be provided by revenues generated from the
acceptance of imported waste, as outlined in this report.
The hauled
liquid waste monitoring program be increased to include audits of 10% of the
loads received and that the sources of the waste be sampled onsite, in keeping
with Best Management Practices;
Que
le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement des services de l’environnement recommande au
Conseil d’approuver ce qui suit :
1.
Que la Ville d’Ottawa continue d’accepter
les déchets liquides transportés provenant de l’extérieur des limites de la
Ville, la priorité étant accordée aux déchets produits sur le territoire de la
Ville, jusqu’à ce qu’il soit possible de quantifier les répercussions de la Loi de 2001 sur la gestion des éléments
nutritifs.
2.
Que les droits d’élimination des
déchets liquides transportés produits sur le territoire de la Ville soient
portés de 0,53 $ le mètre cube à 1,53 $ le mètre cube à compter du 1er
juillet 2005 et qu’ils augmentent ensuite de 1 $ par mètre cube chaque
année, jusqu’au recouvrement intégral des coûts de traitement.
3.
Que les droits d’élimination des
déchets liquides transportés produits à l’extérieur des limites de la Ville
soient portés de 9,21 $ le mètre cube à 19,92 $ le mètre cube à
compter du 1er juillet 2005 et qu’ils soient révisés chaque année
afin de refléter les données en cours, y compris les effets inflationnistes.
4.
Que les droits d’élimination soient
fixés de façon à tenir compte des coûts de mise à niveau et d’entretien de
l’installation d’élimination des déchets transportés, afin d’atténuer les
préoccupations liées à l’environnement et à la sécurité.
5.
Que la portée du programme de
contrôle des déchets liquides transportés soit élargie de façon à assurer
l’analyse de 10 p. 100 des charges reçues, conformément aux pratiques
de gestion exemplaires.
6.
Que les droits d’élimination soient
fixés de façon à tenir compte de la rémunération du personnel chargé de
l’administration de la stratégie relative aux déchets liquides transportés.
7.
Que le Règlement municipal sur les
égouts soit révisé de façon à tenir compte des modifications apportées aux
droits d’élimination.
8.
Que
deux postes permanents soient
établis afin d’effectuer les vérifications souhaitables des déchets liquides
transportés, le financement provenant des recettes générées par l’acceptation
des déchets importés, tel qu’il est souligné dans le présent rapport.
ARAC supports the departmental recommendation
with the following amendment:
WHEREAS the
Planning and Environment Committee deferred a report entitled “Hauled Liquid
Waste Strategy Review” to allow time for further consultation by Councillors
and staff on the rate increase proposal;
AND WHEREAS some rural
business owners were facing projected increases from $.53 per cubic meter to
$6.64 per cubic meter, resulting in up to 1200% increased costs to dispose of
liquid waste;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that the Planning
and Environment Committee and Council approve a phased-in rate increase of
$1.00 per cubic meter per year, to be spread over eight years, and that rates
for outside-the-city generated waste be set at three times actual treatment
costs.
The
management of hauled liquid waste is governed in Ottawa under the Sewer Use
By-law. The authority for this is
provided by the Municipal Act, which specifically allows municipalities to
regulate the discharge of matter into the sewage works and recover associated
fees.
Hauled
liquid waste is composed mainly of the contents from septic tanks, holding
tanks, and portable toilets. While it constitutes
a relatively minor percentage of the total flows entering the Pickard Centre, hauled
liquid waste is much more concentrated than domestic sewage and constitutes a
much higher percentage of the organic and solids loadings at the plant.
Most of the
problems associated with the disposal of hauled liquid waste result from its
increased strength, in comparison to domestic sewage. When hauled liquid waste is introduced to the wastewater
treatment plant, it exerts additional loading which results in increased
operating costs, solids production, and biosolids treatment costs. Unless properly managed, it may also
adversely impact the treatment process, quality of the biosolids and the
receiving waters.
In 1993, the
former Regional Council directed staff to develop a strategy on the management of hauled liquid waste and to report on the establishment
of a disposal fee, tools to monitor and control the waste being discharged, the
need for remote disposal sites and the acceptance of waste from outlying
municipalities. In 1993, the
former Regional Council directed staff to develop a strategy on hauled liquid
waste management and to report on the establishment of a disposal fee, tools to
monitor and control the waste being discharged, the need for remote disposal
sites and the acceptance of waste from outlying municipalities. Since that time, a disposal fee with
differential rates for in City and out of City waste has been established, and
mandatory permitting and manifesting requirements have been implemented.
Since the
implementation of Tthe City’s Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy was first implemented in
1996. It
approved the Robert
O. Pickard Environmental
Centre
(Pickard Centre) as the only location for the disposal of hauled
liquid waste in the City, provided
for the disposal of imported waste, established
a disposal fee with differential rates for in-City
and out-of-City
waste, and implemented
mandatory
permits and manifesting requirements. Staff
were also
directed to investigate the feasibility of remote disposal
sites over the following five- year period.
As indicated in
the information report submitted to CouncilI in October 2003Since
that time, Planning and Environmental
Committee received an information report ACS2003-TUP-UTL-0007
– “Hauled
Liquid Waste Strategy”,
which described the status of the management of hauled
liquid waste,
can be found at the end of this document. describingon is appended to this document in
the City of Ottawa (Document
2). The report described
It reported that, the volume of hauled liquid waste transported to
the Pickard Centre since the initial implementation of the Strategy that the volume of hauled waste hads increased five fold, with approximately 25% of the waste being generated outside City
of Ottawa boundaries.
A revision of the
Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy is required to address issues related to imported
waste, disposal sites, cost recovery, and monitoring requirements. Under the current TThe
City’s Biosolids Management Plan,
2001, was also updated to require strengthening of the Sewer Use
Program
to help
protect
the quality of the biosolidTs; he fee structure,
revenue collected for the disposal of hauled waste in 2004
will fall $500,000 short of recovering the associated treatment
costs. and, aAs a result of the Universal Program Review
in 2003, staff
were Council directed staff to review
sewer and water charges to reflect a full cost recovery model. The
City’s Biosolids Management Plan, 2001, was also updated to require
strengthening of the Sewer Use Program to help protect the quality of the
biosolids. As a result of these events, it
is necessary to re-assess the City of Ottawa approach to the management of liquid waste.investigate
opportunities to
obtain full cost
recovery
on water and wastewater services. Of the more than 500 million litres of waste
received annually, approximately 30% is generated outside City limits. From 2000 to 2001, the volume of waste
generated outside the City of Ottawa increased by 84%, as opposed to only a 13%
increase in waste generated within City boundaries.
This trend
is expected to continue. With few exceptions,
most municipalities with wastewater treatment facilities indicate that they are
at capacity and unable to accept hauled liquid waste. The required upgrades or expansions to accommodate the disposal
of hauled liquid waste are cost prohibitive.
This has made them increasingly dependent on the City of Ottawa to deal
with their liquid waste, resulting in a strain on the existing septage
receiving facility that was never designed to accommodate the volume of waste
currently being received nor the associated traffic.
A revision of
the Hauled liquid waste Strategy is required to address issues related to
imported waste, disposal sites, cost recovery, and monitoring requirements.
DISCUSSION
The term hauled liquid waste refers to wastewater
that is hauled by truck to the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre (Pickard
Centre)
for treatment. It is composed mainly of
the contents from septic tanks, holding tanks, and portable toilets. The management of this waste is governed in
the City of Ottawa under the Sewer Use By-law.
The authority for this is provided by the Municipal Act, which
specifically allows municipalities to regulate the discharge of matter into the
sewage works and recover associated fees.
Although hHaauled liquid waste constitutes a relatively minor
percentage of the total flows entering the Pickard Centre; however,
it is much more concentrated than domestic sewage and,
by comparison contributes a much higher percentage
of the organic and solids loadings at the plant. This
increased When hauled liquid waste is introduced to the
wastewater treatment plant, it exerts additional loading which results in increased
operating costs, solids production, and biosolids treatment and disposal costs. Unless properly managed, it may also
adversely impact the treatment process, quality of the biosolids and the
receiving waters.
Staff
initiated consultation with the general public and the waste hauling community
in the fall of 2002 with respect to the issues outlined above. A study was also commissioned to investigate
the feasibility of remote disposal sites in the City and upgrades required
to alleviate environmental and safety concerns at the
current facility. A comprehensive characterization of the waste
received at the Pickard Centre was performed to ascertain the true costs of
dealing with this material and practices in other municipalities surveyed. The following report details the recommendations for revisupdating the City of Ottawa’s Hauled Liquid Waste
Strategy.
While some issues were relatively
straightforward, it quickly became apparent that the advent of the Nutrient
Management Act, 2001 has major implications with respect to the City’s
continued acceptance of imported waste, disposal site requirements and
potentially, plant capacity.
Of the more than
500 million litres of hauled liquid waste received at the Pickard Centre
annually, approximately 25% is generated outside the City limits. Due to its size and treatment capacity, the Pickard Centre
is one of the few wastewater treatment plants in Eastern Ontario twhichat accepts hauled liquid
wastes generated in
other municipalities. Wastes are currently
received from over
a 150 km radius. While some smaller municipalities do
have their own
wastewater treatment plants, they are unable to accept large truckloads of
concentrated waste. Many may also municipalities
in Eastern Ontario,
with the support of the Ministry of Environment, rely on the Pickard Centre as their means of
disposal for the biosolidswaste they generate
or have this destination listed as
a disposal site in their treatment plant contingency
plans..
The advent of the Nutrient Management Act,
2001, which provides for a five- year
phase out of the land application of untreated septage, has the potential to dramatically
increase the amount of imported waste currently being received at the Pickard
Centre. With
few exceptions, most municipalities with wastewater treatment facilities
indicate that they are at capacity and unable to accept hauled liquid
waste. The required upgrades or
expansions to accommodate the disposal of hauled liquid waste are cost
prohibitive, making. This has made them increasingly dependent on the City of Ottawa
to deal with their liquid waste.
The Pickard Centre has the process capacity to treat the volume of imported waste currently being received. The
expansion of
the digester facility that is scheduled for completion in 2007 will also
likely
provide
sufficient capacity to deal with increase volumes of imported waste resulting
from the implementation of the Nutrient Management Act, 2001. However, the
existing septage receiving facility located at the Pickard Center that
was not designed
to accommodate the truck traffic
associated with the volume of waste
currently being received at the Pickard
Centre,,
or the increased volumes expected to be received in the future. .
Currently, an average of eighteentwenty thousand trucks make use of the site annually. The increased truck traffic, especially when
coupled with the increased use of tanker trailers, has resulted in numerous
operational issues including long waiting times for waste haulers, agdegrading facilities, and environmental and health and safety
considerations onsite. Should the City continue to extend
the spirit of cooperation and goodwill to outlying municipalities by accepting
imported waste in the future, the
disposal site will require upgrades.
There is
insufficient data currently available to evaluate the impacts of imported
hauled liquid waste on the wastewater treatment plant. Volumes of imported waste being received are
increasing rapidly from year to year and the decreasing use of land application
of sewage has resulted in a need for other disposal options for outlying
municipalities. Due to a lack of other
disposal facilities, the Pickard Centre is currently treating waste generated
in an area roughly bordered by Gracefield, Hawkesbury, Kingston and
Eganville. Because this area increases
annually, it is difficult to estimate what future quantities of waste we might
be requested to treat.
A meeting
with Canada’s Capital Municipal Gateway Association (CCMGA) took place in March
2003 and identified common concerns related to the goal of finding long-term
solutions to this issue. It was agreed that the public’s interest demands that
a sustainable long-term solution to the problem be developed. A motion was submitted that the Ministry of
the Environment (MOE) be requested to undertake a comprehensive study of
septage waste disposal options for Eastern Ontario and that the options for
disposal identified receive appropriate provincial funding for a timely
implementation.
Staff are
awaiting the outcome of these initiatives and have requested estimates of the
increased volumes of imported waste expected to be generated by outlying
municipalities prior to making recommendations with respect to the issue of
imported waste. A report will be
submitted to Council once all of the information has been received.
The advent
of the Nutrient Management Act, 2001, also has the potential to dramatically
increase the amount of imported waste currently being received at the Pickard
Centre. It provides for a five-year phase-out of the land application of
untreated septage, a practice currently used by many outlying municipalities to
dispose of their sewage waste. Under
the Nutrient Management Act, 2001, municipalities will be required to develop a
Municipal Septage Strategy for septage and submit it to the MOE. Three municipalities have already requested
that the City of Ottawa become a temporary or even permanent part of their
solution. It is also anticipated that
many of the fifteen municipalities currently relying on the Pickard Centre for
disposal of their wastewater treatment plant sludges will follow suit.
Estimates from
local municipalities are that truck traffic to the Pickard Centre would
increase exponentially over the next few years if their wastes were brought to
the City’s wastewater treatment plant for disposal. The current facility could not accommodate this contingency. At the meeting with the CCMGA, it was
further agreed that the Minister of the Environment and local MPPs be advised
of the imminent crisis and be requested to attend a meeting with elected
officials from the Gateway Association to discuss how best to address the
situation.
In
1996, former Regional Council approved the Pickard Centre to be the only
location for the disposal of hauled liquid waste in the City of Ottawa
and directed staff to investigate the feasibility of remote disposal sites over
the next five yearsThe
only disposal site currently
available for the disposal of hauled liquid waste is located at the Pickard
Centre, the City’s wastewater treatment plant.
Historically, the use of remote disposal sites
resulted in operational difficulties, environmental contamination and public complaints. In 1996, the former Regional Council directed staff to
investigate the feasibility of remote disposal sites over the following five
year period, largely in
response to requests from the waste hauling community.
.
An
external study as to the
feasibility of remote disposal sites took place inundertaken in
the fall of 2002 concluded that a remote disposal sitethis was not a recommended option due to the lack of a
proper location,
and high capital and operating costs, and difficulties monitoring
the waste being added to the sewage works. The study recommended instead,
that the City upgrade its
current facility,
providing the overall best value of investment. Public consultation with waste haulers indicated that most of
them were in support of this option. Of
those that preferred
an alternate location closer to their base of operations,
few were interested in contributing towards the costs of
constructing and maintaining such
a facility.
The
study and consultation with waste haulers also
gave rise to various mechanisms that could be
implemented at the Pickard Centre to improve the conditions at the existing
disposal site. Several initiatives,
such as grading, traffic rerouting and City supplied hoses, could be
implemented relatively easily and cost effectively, to alleviate some problems
in the short term. These initiatives
ranged in cost from $5,000 toup to $50,000.
Long-term solutions included other initiatives, such as the construction
of a new facility or disposal bays. These
would require resources in excess of one million dollars.
As described above, it
is the a significant
increase
in truck traffic that
has necessitated
operational changes at the Pickard Center and the
potential may
result in a requirement for
capital expenditures. if
it continues.
In
keeping with the user pay concept, it is recommended that a levy
Staff will
not have a good understanding of the future requirements for plant capacity or
the septage disposal facility until the impacts of the Nutrient Management Act,
2001 are known and a decision regarding the treatment of imported waste is
reached. At that time, the most
appropriate solutions for the disposal facility will be evaluated and a report
submitted to Council. of
$0.25 per cubic metre of waste disposed of at the Pickard Centre be included in
the disposal fee and set aside to cover
the costs of maintaining and upgrading the hcurrent
hauled waste
disposal facility. This is
consistent with the 20/20 principle of sustainable infrastructure, and would also enable the City to continue
accepting imported waste without resulting in additional costs to taxpayers. The decision to continue accepting imported
waste should be re-evaluated once the true impacts of the Nutrient
Management Act, 2001 on the Pickard Center disposal site are confirmed
and can be quantified.
While
the volume of hauled liquid waste has increased dramatically over the past few
years, staffing levels have decreased since the inception of the Sewer use Program.
The
increased volumes of hauled liquid waste discharged
at the Pickard Centre over the past few years, in conjunction with
the additional requirement to strengthen the program
to help protect the quality of biosolids, As
hasa taxedresulted in placing unforeseen
pressure on the Sewer Use Program resources. This has resulted, the City of Ottawa does not have an adequate
program to in
decreased
monitoring of the hauled liquid waste received at the Pickard Centre.
Best
Management Practices for
Hauled Liquid Waste recommend that at
least 10% of the loads of hauled liquid waste discharged
to the sewage works be audited. The
subsequent investigation
and remediation of any discrepancies resulting
from the monitoring also requires additional resources. Given the importance of protecting past investment
in City’s infrastructure, sStaff believe
that a proactive attainingmonitoring
strategy best protects the City’s infrastructure and treatment process.
the hauled waste. this goal, but
it is currently track
and confirm the sources of hauled liquid waste. not possible to
do so without negatively impacting the City’s
ability to address industrial discharges to the sewer system. The current program results in the audit of less
than 3 % of the loads disposed of at the Pickard Centre, in comparison to the
10% recommended by industry
Best Management Practices. With the exception of the recent waste
characterization, on-site sampling is only done
occasionally, providing ample opportunity for waste haulers to
misrepresent the source of their waste.
In
order to achieve the Efforts over the past two years indicate that mMmonitoring levels recommended by Best Management Practices,
a
minimum of two inspectors are required. An increasedimproved monitoring program would enhance
our ability to achieve
improvementsbetter meet industry
in service standards
by providinge more
effective quality better control
of the waste entering the wastewater treatment plant.
and This
focus on prevention and environmental stewardship is consistent with 20/20
principles.ensure that real treatment costs may be properly
assessed.
It
is proposed that two full-time positions a positionsbe
staffedhired
to review and improve
the hauled liquid waste monitoring program. The
effort required to administer hauled liquid waste takes away from the City’s
ability to address industrial discharges to the sewer system. One additional
person year is required for administering the permitting, manifesting and auditing
requirements for hauled liquid waste. Support staff, which includes data entry for billing purposes, are
in addition to this requirement. In keeping with the user pay concept, it is
recommended that a levy of
$0.25 per cubic metre of waste disposed of at the Pickard Centre be included in
the disposal fee to
cover the costs of staffing these positions to administer the above noted requirements.
Treating
hauled liquid waste requires the removal of significant additional organic material,
in comparison to domestic sewage. This
is particularly important,
since the cost of treating waste at the Pickard Centre relates primarily to the
removal of organic matter from the wastewater. For
this reason, treatment costs
are calculated
based on waste strength or concentration
rather than on volume alone.
The
establishment of the current fees, which took place
over a three- year period from 1993 to 1996, was complex and controversial. After
a great deal of research and public consultation, the former Regional Council recognizedfelt
that a two tiered
fee based on waste type was virtually impossible to put into effect and instead
implemented a single fee for the disposal of all hauled liquid waste. They also opted not to recover full treatment
costs for waste generated within the City limits, but rather to charge the
equivalent of the sewer surcharge. The fee for waste generated outside City
limits was set to twice the average treatment costs at that time.
Even
with the increased rate for out of City waste, the fees collected for the
disposal of hauled waste in 2004 will fall $500,000
short of recovering the associated treatment costs. In light of the current budget pressures faced by the City, it is
unreasonable to continue treating hauled liquid wastes at a financial
loss. The relatively low disposal fees
have also made it more lucrative for waste haulers to use the City’s facility
rather that one with a higher disposal fee.
For example, increasing amounts of liquid waste are being hauled to the
Pickard Centre from Quebec, due to disposal fee of $27.01 per cubic metre of
waste charged at the Gatineau wastewater treatment plant, in comparison to the
$9.21 per cubic metre charged at the Pickard Centre.
The current
fees for the disposal of hauled liquid waste are $0.515 per cubic metre for
waste generated within the City and $8.94 per cubic metre for waste generated
outside the City. ncil
opted ncil opted . The
fee for . wWwas
set tois billed ats
at that time..
The relatively low disposal fees have made it more
lucrative for waste haulers to use the City’s facility rather that one with a
higher disposal fee. For
example, increasing
amounts of
liquid waste are being hauled to the Pickard Centre from
Quebec,
due to disposal fee of $27.01 per
cubic metre of waste charge at the Gatineau wastewater treatment plant, in
comparison to the $9.21 per cubic metre charged at the Pickard Centre.
Sewer Use Program
staff have undertaken a comprehensive characterization of the hauled liquid waste received
at the Pickard Centre.
Results were used to determine the
costs of treating the waste hauled to the Pickard Centre for treatment. Because it had pBecause it was
recognizedreviously
been felt that a blended rate overcharged holding tank
owners to some extent, and undercharged septic tank owners, the subject
of differential rates was also revisited.
Complicating
matters, iIt
is often difficult to distinguish between holding tank and septic tank waste
because the wastes typically have
similar characteristics and are frequently discharged
as a mixed stream by the waste haulers.
Many hauled waste tankers contain mixtures of holding tank waste and
septic tank waste. Differentiating
between the waste types for loads that arrive onsite in a “blended” state,
would prove to be onerous for both waste haulers and staff. Improper
auditing could result in misrepresentation of waste and decreased revenues such
that treatment costs are not properly recovered. For that reason
aloneStaff’s
conclusion is that, the administration of a two tiered rate system is
unfeasible.
actual
treatment costs, which can be seen
in the table below.
A
single rate is the most cost effective and balanced option
with minimal administrative and billing requirements. The blended
rate provides
recovery of actual treatment costs
and can
be easily maintained as plant costs and waste characteristics change. It includes treatment plant costs and capital reinvestment, excluding growth related
capital. The cost of treating
hauled liquid waste was calculated using actual treatment costs incurred by the
City of Ottawa. Capital reinvestment
costs were based on the approved 2003 – 2007 five-year capital plan.
Table 1: Disposal
Fees Required to Achieve Cost Recovery
Cost per cubic
metre |
Inside the City |
Outside the City |
|
Double Treatment Costs |
Triple Treatment Costs |
||
Actual Treatment Costs |
$6.14 |
$12.28 |
$18.42 |
Treatment Cost plus facility levy |
$6.39 |
$12.78 |
$19.17 |
Proposed fees: Treatment
Cost plus facility levy and staff levy |
$6.64 |
$13.28 |
$19.92 |
Current fee |
$0.53 |
$9.21 |
The unit rate required to completely
recover the treatment costs for hauled liquid waste, including monitoring and
facility maintenance, is $6.64 per cubic metre. Setting the rate lower than this, even with a fee for imported
waste set to double the treatment costs, would result in partial subsidization
of rural waste management by rate payers on the sewer system.
Most municipalities that accept
imported waste do so at an increased cost, ranging from $10 more per cubic
metre to two and a half times the rate
of inside waste. There
are indications that some companies misrepresent the source of their waste in
order to avoid paying the increased disposal fees for waste that has been
generated outside the City boundaries.
This results in lost revenues and improper record
keeping. The larger the discrepancies between the two
rates, the higher the potential for this practice.
It is anticipated that this practice will become
more attractive if the proposed fee increases are adopted. For that reason, it is recommended that two full-time positions be
established to increase the .main among
the lowest in the countraudits
of the loads of hauled liquid waste received to ensure that the appropriate
disposal fees are collected. It
is anticipated that revenues recovered as a result of an increased
monitoring program would fund the cost
of those required resources, which would also provide the
environmental benefits outlined in the preceding section.. It is anticipated that this practice will become
more and more common if the proposed fee increases are adopted.
Disposal fees from municipalities across Canada
were obtained and
can be found in Document 1, attached to this report. Since the
fee for the disposal of hauled liquid waste generated within the City is based
on the sewer surcharge rate, during the upcoming review of the 2004 budget, it
will be recommended that this fee be increased to $0.94 per cubic metre to
reflect the increase that came into effect in May 2002. As can be seen in the table in
Document 1, eEven
with the proposed increase,
the disposal
fees for
hauled liquid
waste in
the City of Ottawa would remain reasonable, especially in
comparison to other metropolitan areas.
Impact
of Fee Increase on City Residents
Public
consultation indicated that both waste haulers and their customers are not in
favour of increased disposal fees. Generally
speaking, they expect to be billed for services but ask that they be kept
affordable. Waste
haulers will likely pass
on any fee increases to their customers.
The
proposed fee increase would result in additional costs to septic tank
owners of approximately $4.50 per
pump out, the first year of the fee increase.
This impact would apply each year until full cost recovery is achieved. This would
be in addition to the $100 to $150 dollars charged by
waste haulers for their services. Approximately
thirty thousand septic tanks are located in the
City. Most
are pumped out once every three to five years.
A
fee increase reflecting the full cost of treatment, would
have a larger impact
on those residents who make use of holding tanks or portable toilets, as the
frequency of pump outs is generally much higher and holding tanks are
usually sized larger than septic tanks. Based
on average holding tank size, the proposed fee increase would result in additional costs
in the amount of $21.00 per pump out, the first year it is
implemented. This impact would apply each year
until full cost recovery is achieved.
At that time, the additional cost would
be approximately $150.00
per pump out. The
annual fee increase would be dependent on the
frequency of pump
out. Based
on current information, approximately two hundred and
thirty five2350
locations with holding tanks within
the City boundaries would be affected
by the proposed fee increase.
The
impact on nearly half
of these
locations should
be less than $30.00 the first year of the fee increase,
with the median increase amounting
to approximately $40.00. Thirty
percent of holding tank owners would
see fee increases ranging from $200.00 to
$1,500.00
per year, with the remaining twenty percent faced
with annual fee increases ranging from $2,000.00
to over $20,000.00. This
would apply each year until full cost recovery is achieved. Industrial
establishments, as opposed to single residences, would face the higher fee
increases given the
nature of their activities..
Public
consultation indicated that rural residents and waste haulers agree with the
concept of cost recovery; however, most felt that the difference between the
rates currently being charged and those required for cost recovery was too high
to absorb at once. In order to mitigate
the impact of rural residents, it is recommended that the increase be phased in
at a rate of $1.00 per cubic metre per year, until treatment costs are fully
recovered. It is estimated that, based
on current inflationary and treatments cost trends, full cost recovery would be
achieved in approximately eight years time.
In order to accelerate the removal of the burden away from the rate
payer subsidy for the treatment of hauled liquid waste, it is further
recommended that the rate for imported waste be increased to three times the
treatment cost.
While the
volume of hauled liquid waste has increased dramatically over the past few
years, staffing levels have decreased since the inception of the Sewer use
Program. As a result, the City of
Ottawa does not currently have an adequate program to track and confirm the
sources of hauled liquid waste. The
current program results in the audit of less than 3 % of the loads disposed of
at the Pickard Centre, in comparison to the 10% recommended by Best Management
Practices. On-site sampling is only
rarely done.
An improved
monitoring program would provide better control of the waste entering the
wastewater treatment plant and ensure that real treatment costs may be properly
assessed, as will be required by Bill 175.
Although it has not been proclaimed as of yet, the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is recommending that all Ontario municipalities
move towards full cost recovery for both water and wastewater systems in
anticipation of this event.
Increasing
the audits of the loads of hauled liquid waste received would also serve to ensure
that the appropriate disposal fees are collected. There are indications that some companies misrepresent the source
of their waste in order to avoid paying the increased disposal fees for waste
that has been generated outside the City boundaries. This results in lost revenues and improper record keeping. It is anticipated that this practice will
become more and more common if the proposed fee increases are adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Uncontrolled
disposal of hauled liquid waste, or the Aacceptance of unapproved effluents may result in discharges to the
natural environment. Improved monitoring at the
Pickard CentreRopec
will minimize the occurrence of unapproved materials Improper
disposal of hauled liquid waste may result in discharges to the natural
environment. Improved monitoring will
minimize the risk of the disposal of waste that may interfere with the wastewater treatment
process or pass directly to the natural environment, contributing toward the
City’s compliance with environmental legislation.
Rural
residents not connected to the sewer system will be faced with increased
disposal fees for having their holding tanks and septic tanks pumped out. The
first year the proposed fee increase is implemented septic
tank owners would face additional costs of
approximately $4.50 per pump out (usually every
three to five years).
The additional costs to most typical residences
with holding tanks should be less than $30.00
per year. Non-residential
holding tank owners may be faced with annual
fee increases ranging from $30.00
to over $3,000.00, with a median increase of approximately
$40.00. These impacts would apply each year until
full cost recovery is achieved.
Public
consultation was initiated in October 2002.
Notices were placed in the Citizen and Le Droit inviting the public to
provide comments, and letters describing the initiative were mailed directly to
waste haulers, some clients, and the mayors of outlying municipalities. Waste haulers were also surveyed
individually over the telephone. A meeting was held with Canada’s Capital Municipal
Gateway Association in March 2003, which brought to light the complexities
involved with imported waste.
Generally
speaking, most stakeholders would prefer that the City continue accepting
imported waste provided it does not interfere with the operation of the
wastewater treatment
plant. They would prefer that there be
no fee increases, but understand the
concept of user pay.
Stakeholders
directly impacted by the fee increases were
notified of
the proposed fee increase
by letter in November 2004,
and provided with the information required to submit
their comments. A public meeting
was also held in Metcalfe on 28 February 2005, at the request of Councillor Thompson.
Additional
public consultation will be required to resolve this issue.
Changes to
the fee structure for hauled liquid waste will be the subject of a rate review
as part of the 2004 Budget discussion.
Implementing the recommendations of this report would result in 2 additional FTE’s at an annual cost of approximately $150,000 in the Sewer Use Program Operating Budget of the Environmental Programs & Technical Support Division, Utility Services Branch, Public Works and Services Department, with a part year impact of $75,000 in 2005. The proposed fee increases would cost recover an additional $300,000 in 2005 and $550,000 in 2006, for net reductions in the Sewer Fund (rate-supported) operations in the amounts of $150,000 in 2005 and $700,000 in 2006.
The current fee structure falls short of recovering the associated treatment costs of Hauled Liquid Waste. The proposed fee structure will gradually achieve full cost recovery in six to seven years.
Any potential facility changes and/or improvements requiring capital expenditures will be identified during the 2006 Capital Budget process.
This report has no implications
on the property tax requirements since the Sewer Use Program is funded from the
sewer fund.
Document
1: Comparison of Hauled Liquid
Waste Disposal Fees Across Canada
Document
2: Report ACS2003-TUP-UTL-007 –
“Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy”
Disposition
CITY |
COST ($
PER 1000 L) |
COMMENTS |
|
|
|
Winnipeg,
Manitoba |
1.00 |
|
Barrie, Ontario |
2.50 / 7.00 |
Holding tank / septic tank |
Norfolk County, Ontario |
2.53 / 9.46 |
Holding tank / septic tank |
Halton,
Ontario |
2.20 |
|
Peel,
Ontario |
2.58 |
|
Kawartha Lakes, Ontario |
3.97 / 6.61 |
Residential / commercial |
|
|
|
Oxford
County, Ontario |
3.30 |
|
Strathroy-Caradoc,
Ontario |
3.67 |
|
Kingston, Ontario |
5.16 |
|
Penetanguishene, Ontario |
5.25 |
|
London, Ontario |
5.29 / 13.23 |
In City / Out of City - |
Niagara,
Ontario |
6.35 |
Residential
/ Commercial - |
Chatham-Kent, Ontario |
6.60 / 13.20 |
In-region / out of region |
Midland |
6.61 |
|
Ottawa, Ontario
(proposed new fees) |
6.64 / 19.92 |
In City / Out of
City - |
|
|
|
Collingwood, Ontario |
7.70 |
|
Durham,
Ontario |
10.38 |
Full
O&M cost recovery |
York,
Ontario |
10.38 |
|
Orillia, Ontario |
10.58 |
|
Bancroft, Ontario |
11.00 / 22.00 |
In City / Out of City |
Cobourg, Ontario |
11.90 |
Half price for volumes > 10 000 gallons in one day |
Leamington, Ontario |
11.90 |
|
Peterborough, Ontario |
11.90 |
|
Waterloo, Ontario |
14.30 |
Average
rate based on truck size |
Gatineau,
Quebec |
15.44
/ 27.01 |
In
region / out of region |
Montreal,
Quebec |
16.11 |
|
Windsor,
Ontario |
19.80 |
|
Calgary,
Alberta |
22.40 |
|
Belleville, Ontario |
26.40 |
|
Toronto,
Ontario |
27.86 |
|
Victoria,
BC |
28.60 / 39.60 |
In
region / out of region
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victoria,
BC |
50.59 |
Privately
run - |
SUBJECT: SEWER
USE BY-LAW REVISION
OBJET: RÉVISION DU RÈGLEMENT SUR L’UTILISATION DES ÉGOUTS
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION(S)
That the Environmental
Services Committee recommends
Council
approve
the following:
The
draft Sewer Use By-law contained in Document 1 be enacted by Council and become
effective 01 January 2004;
The
pertinent sections of all former municipalities’ by-laws and Part 5.2 of the
Regional Regulatory Code be repealed, effective 01 January 2004;
Staff
be directed to develop a Sewer Use By-law Administration Policy, to be
submitted to Council for approval in January 2004;
Staff
be directed to develop Best Management Practices for Dental Establishments,
Food Establishments and Automotive Establishments, to be submitted to Council
for approval by the end of 2004;
The
use of Best Management Practices as a monitoring tool be evaluated for
enforcement efficiencies, impact on the public and savings on sewer maintenance
costs, and a final report detailing the findings be submitted to Council in
2005; and
Fees
be updated in accordance with this report.
RECOMMANDATION(S) DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité des services de l’environnement
recommande au Conseil d’approuver
:
la
promulgation par le Conseil du Règlement provisoire sur l’utilisation des
égouts contenu au document 1, et son entrée en vigueur le 1er
janvier 2004;
l’abrogation
des sections pertinentes des règlements des anciennes municipalités et de la
partie 5.2 du Code de réglementation régional, avec effet au 1er
janvier 2004;
l’élaboration
par le personnel d’une politique d’administration du Règlement sur
l’utilisation des égouts qui devra être soumise à l’approbation du Conseil en
janvier 2004;
l’élaboration
par le personnel de pratiques de gestion optimales pour les établissements de
soins dentaires, les établissements alimentaires et les établissements
d’entretien d’automobiles qui devront être soumises au Conseil d’ici à la fin
de 2004;
l’évaluation
des pratiques de gestion optimales comme outil de contrôle, pour ce qui
concerne l’efficacité de leur application, leur incidence sur la population et
les économies en frais d’entretien des égouts, ainsi que la présentation au
Conseil, en 2005, d’un rapport final précisant les conclusions de cette
évaluation;
la
mise à jour des droits de la manière prévue par le présent rapport.
BACKGROUND
The
disposal of wastewater to all sewers in the City of Ottawa, including the waste
that is trucked to the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre for treatment, is
currently
governed
by Part 5.2 of the Regional Regulatory Code - “Sewers, Sewage Works and Control
of Discharges” (Sewer Use By-law). The authority for this is provided by the Municipal
Act, which specifically allows municipalities to regulate the discharge of
matter into the sewage works and recover associated costs. The current Sewer
Use By-law was
passed
by
the
former Regional Council
on
26 June 1996. It was based largely on
the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) 1988 Model Sewer Use By-law.
In
1998, the MOE released an updated draft Model Sewer Use By-law for public
consultation. It underwent several
revisions before a decision was made to change tactics and develop a guidance
manual for municipalities on how to develop a Sewer Use By-law. Rather than waiting for the publication of
this document, staff have revised the City’s Sewer Use By-law at this time to
accommodate changes created by municipal amalgamation and to stay current with
changing legislation and emerging environmental concerns. This is consistent with the directions of
many local municipalities, and will also assist in strengthening the Sewer Use
Program and implementing Council’s directive as contained within the City’s
Biosolids Management Plan, approved in 2001.
The
proposed revisions to the Sewer Use By-law are based on the latest version of
the MOE Model Sewer Use By-law, literature searches, and a review of by-laws
and operating practices in other municipalities. Additional parameters and revised discharge limits are more
stringent than many of those in the draft MOE Model By-law, but are consistent
with the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), which emphasizes the
importance of pollution prevention at source in order to protect the
environment and human health.
DISCUSSION
A
draft copy of the proposed new Sewer Use By-law can be found in Document
1. The proposed changes are outlined
below. The portions of the by-law which
have not been changed or whose changes are for the purposes of reformatting for
ease of use are not discussed. In
addition, once the by-law has been enacted by Council, staff will prepare an
Administration Policy to be presented to Committee and Council for approval,
delineating how the various sections of the bylaw will be applied and enforced.
Definitions
Several
new definitions were added to the by-law and others deleted. Many others were modified to incorporate new
and revised regulations.
Application
The by-law applies to all combined, sanitary and
storm sewers, sewage works and any connections that enter into sewage works in
the City of Ottawa. It does not apply
to the discharges made in an emergency that has been determined and approved by
the Medical Officer of Health.
Discharges to Sanitary Sewers or Combined Sewers
This section of the by-law delineates what types of
matter may or may not be discharged to sanitary or combined sewers. It contains general prohibitions,
restrictions, discharge limits, and specifies conditions for the discharge of
certain materials.
Several new parameters have been added to the
by-law and limits have been changed for others. The discharge limits and the rationale for those changes can be
found in Documents 2 and 3, respectively.
The following briefly discusses the areas that elicited the most concern
from internal staff and the public during the consultation process and outlines
the resulting proposed revisions.
1. Atmospheric
Limits
Rather
than specifying atmospheric discharge limits, the former Sewer Use By-law
contained general clauses prohibiting discharges, which may cause harm to the
sewage works, sewer workers and the environment. For clarification, it has been proposed that specific limits for
the readings obtained from gas monitoring of the sewer atmosphere, which is
done prior to manhole cover being lifted, be included in the by-law. The parameters and limits of concern are for, explosive gases (10% of Lower
Explosion Limit - OHSA) and hydrogen sulphide, which is a toxic gas harmful to both personnel and infrastructure (10 ppm – Odour Threshold).
2. Biomedical
Waste
The former Sewer Use By-law prohibited the
discharge of whole blood in sufficient quantities to block a sewer and
pathological waste. For clarification,
a definition for Biomedical waste, and restrictions on its discharge have been
proposed in the draft by-law. The
initial draft of the by-law prohibited the discharge of biomedical waste to the
sewers entirely, due to draft legislation proposed by the MOE. As a result of public consultation, the MOE
has reverted to their previous guideline, which permits the discharge of blood
to the sewage works under controlled circumstances.
Consultation with hospitals and funeral homes in
the City of Ottawa indicate that the segregation and specialized treatment of
biomedical waste creates a financial burden and expressed concerns regarding
the environmental impact of transporting the waste elsewhere. In addition, the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment guidelines and the City’s Health Department indicate
that the sewering of non-pathological biomedical waste is the safest and most
environmentally friendly method to dispose of this material.
As a result of the above, it has been proposed that
the discharge of biomedical waste to the sewer be permitted when done so in
accordance with MOE Guideline C-4 for the Management of Biomedical Waste in
Ontario. Biomedical waste known to
contain pathological agents must also be decontaminated prior to
discharge. To minimize the risk of
exposing sewer workers to biomedical waste, it has been proposed that the
discharge of such bulk fluids only take place between the hours of midnight and
6am.
3. Fuels
The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI),
whose members include Canadian Tire, Imperial Oil, Petro-Canada, Safety-Kleen,
Shell Canada, Sunoco, and Ultramar, among others, expressed concern that some
discharge limits in the by-law may not be achievable in practical terms, even
with the use of pollution prevention and best available technology. They suggested instead, that Best Management
Practices (BMPs) be considered as the best approach to address the
environmental and safety concerns associated with their members. The City of Toronto is investigating this
avenue as a compliance tool, and Sewer Use Program staff agrees that it has
some merit.
4. Silver
Bearing Waste from Photofinishing Processes
It has been proposed that a clause be added to
require all photofinishers who generate silver bearing waste to pre-treat their
waste stream with a silver recovery unit.
Most of these industries currently have this practice in place. It is unlikely that the by-law limit for
silver could be met otherwise. This
requirement should not pose undue hardship on photofinishers, and will serve to
make compliance monitoring much more efficient and cost effective.
5. Sludge
As a result of the enactment of the Nutrient
Management Act and impact
on the
land application of sewage sludge, the City is being requested to process
increasing amounts of sludge from wastewater treatment facilities from outlying
municipalities. It is anticipated that
sludge from the City’s water treatment plant will also be discharged to the
sewer by 2007. Because most sludges are
a byproduct of a treatment process, they are typically very concentrated and do
not meet the by-law limits for many parameters. Despite this, many can be treated at the Pickard Centre without
adversely impacting the wastewater treatment process or the final products
provided they meet certain criteria. In
order to properly recover treatment costs and to provide for adequate
monitoring, it has been proposed that sludges pre-approved by a Wastewater
Treatment Plant Engineer be accepted for discharge, subject to the terms and
conditions of a discharge agreement.
6. Waste
Disposal Site Leachate
The discharge of waste disposal site leachate to
the sewage works is prohibited unless it is done under the authority of a
Leachate Agreement, which has been approved by Council. Three Leachate Agreements are currently in
place: one with the Trail Road Landfill
site, dated March 1996; one with Waste Services Inc., dated 10 April 1999;
and one with Canadian Waste Services Inc, dated 10 August 2001.
The City of Ottawa Delegation of Authority By-law,
delegates the authority to enter into Leachate Agreements to the General
Manager of TUPW and the Director of Utilities.
As a result, the by-law no longer requires Council approval for these
agreements. Staff will continue to
prepare information reports, however, in order to ensure that Councilors are
kept abreast of new developments in the sewering of waste disposal site
leachate.
7. Mercury
Mercury is a toxic heavy metal that is known to
bio-accumulate in the environment. It
has been targeted by CEPA for virtual elimination. It became a parameter of concern after the National Pollutant
Release Inventory (NPRI) Report for the City indicated that the Pickard Centre
was a significant source of mercury being discharged into the environment. In order to remediate this situation, the
mercury limit in the by-law was decreased from 0.1 mg/l to 0.001mg/l. Due to literature, which suggests that
dental amalgam can contribute between 20% and 80% of the total load of mercury
being discharged to municipal wastewater treatment plants, a requirement was also
included for the installation of dental amalgam separators in dental offices.
This was of concern to some dental associations
because the discharge of mercury, which is contained in dental amalgam, is
inherent to the practice of dentistry.
Manufacturers of certified amalgam separators currently on the market
will guarantee a 95% reduction in the discharge of mercury from dental offices;
however, they cannot guarantee that the discharge will meet the new limit
proposed in the revised by-law. In
addition, some dental practices do not deal with dental amalgam and feel that
the installation of an interceptor would create an unreasonable financial
burden.
The dental sector has also been very proactive in
regulating the discharge of waste from dental practices: the Canadian Dental
Association has signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Canada Wide Standards
on Mercury for Dental Amalgam Waste; the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long
Term Care and the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario have recently
passed a new regulation that will require dentists in Ontario to install dental
amalgam separators; and Environment Canada and the Ontario Dental Association
are in the process of developing a BMP to incorporate these requirements. There has been some indication that
voluntary implementation of these standards should be sufficient in the
reduction of dental amalgam waste discharges into the environment, and that
dental practices should be exempt from the Sewer Use By-law.
While the City appreciates the intent for voluntary
compliance with the Canada Wide Standards and other waste management
initiatives, from a due diligence perspective, the Sewer Use By-law must be
actively enforced by City staff. In
order to address the concerns raised by the dental sector, and avoid problems
encountered in Calgary where staff are unable to enforce their stringent
mercury limits due to the lack of good sampling locations in dental offices, it
has been proposed that dental establishments be exempt from the mercury limit
provided they have installed amalgam separators certified to reduce mercury
discharges by 95% and are operating in compliance with a BMP, that has yet to
be developed. Further, those specialty
practices identified in the Canada Wide Standard as not using dental amalgam
have been exempted from these requirements.
They will, however, be expected to meet the discharge limits for
mercury.
There are at least three manufacturers who market
ISO certified dental amalgam separators in Canada. The price of installation may range from $500.00 to $6000.00 and
they take up very little room. The
mercury from these units is recycled, requiring annual maintenance. The BMP will be developed in conjunction
with the dental community once the by-law is approved by Council, and to
minimize the impact on the individual dental practices, will mirror the one
under development with Environment Canada as closely as possible.
8. Formaldehyde
It has been proposed that the revised by-law
contain a limit of 0.3 mg/l for formaldehyde.
This limit was set higher than the Provincial Water Quality Objective
(PWQO) of 0.008mg/l because wastewater characterizations performed by City
staff indicate that it is present in domestic wastewater. A representative of the Ottawa Funeral
Directors expressed concern that this level may not be achievable by funeral
homes. However, documentation submitted
to the City by a consultant hired by the Ottawa Funeral Directors indicated
that, since formaldehyde is consumed during the embalming procedure, the
discharges from funeral homes should have no problem meeting the proposed
limit, provided leftover embalming fluid is not disposed of through the City
sewers. Staff feels that increasing the
formaldehyde limit would be inconsistent with the concept of pollution
prevention at source.
9. Volatile
Organic Carbons
One industry requested that rather than having
specific limits for numerous parameters which can be categorized as volatile
organic carbons, that one limit for “Total Toxic Organics” be considered. Staff considered this suggestion, but due to
some of the health and safety concerns with some of the compounds in question,
felt that it would be best to have specific limits for each parameters.
10. Best
Management Practices
Non-residential discharges to the sewage works are
currently monitored by installing sampling equipment into the sewer system and
taking samples of the wastewater exiting a premise. Due to the resource requirements associated with this practice
and the costs of sample analysis, the City is currently only able to monitor approximately
150 discharge locations on a regular basis.
This monitoring may be on a quarterly, semi-annual or annual schedule,
depending on the facility. Inspections
are performed at another 100 locations annually.
There are in excess of 6,000 non-residential
dischargers to the sewage works in Ottawa.
The current monitoring program, which concentrates on regulating
discharges from the most significant locations, deals with less than five
percent of non-residential dischargers.
Staff felt
that this was inadequate and investigated
alternate methods of service delivery to make the best use of resources. Particular attention was paid to identifying
a mechanism with which to deal with the smaller Industrial, Commercial and
Institutional (ICI) dischargers, which make up the majority of the
non-residential dischargers in the City of Ottawa. Upon review of comments received during the public consultation
process and a study on Best Practices for Source Control Programs, it was
determined that the most innovative approach would be to implement the use of
BMPs.
BMPs are a relatively new monitoring and compliance
tool for dealing with ICI businesses, that is becoming increasingly more
popular in the US and western provinces.
They differ from the standard approach of simply sampling wastewater
discharges in that they deal with industry specific waste management issues and
are developed in conjunction with industry.
Typically, BMPs contain requirements for special handling of waste and
the installation of pre-treatment equipment.
This more holistic approach to compliance can be easily audited through
regular inspections, and it requires significantly less resources per industry.
The change in focus from sampling alone to the
addition of BMPs for ICI businesses would result in a significant increase in
the numbers of dischargers that are regularly monitored by staff with minimal
additional resource requirements. In
keeping with the principle of source control, there is also the potential for
savings to be obtained in maintenance costs for sewers and pumping stations
since the industries that can be monitored for compliance using BMPs are those
whose discharges have the most potential to result in maintenance requirements.
e.g., grease from food establishments and oil from
automotive establishments.
As previously discussed, staff intend to use BMPs
to monitor dental practices to ensure that the amount of mercury being
discharged to the sewage system is minimized.
Similarly, BMPs could be used to ensure that sand, oil and grease
interceptors are properly installed and maintained at over 3,000 locations
across the City, reducing the discharge of this material to the sewer system by
as much as 50%. This addition to the
program would complement the monitoring of the industrial dischargers currently
taking place, ensuring adequate protection of the sewage infrastructure and the
environment.
It has been proposed that exemptions may be
provided for some by-law limits if a BMP, which has been approved by Council,
is adhered to. It is recommended that a consultant be hired to develop BMPs for dental
offices, food establishments and automotive establishments in 2004. The resource requirements to implement these
BMPs will be evaluated and a report submitted to Council in 2005 outlining
anticipated enforcement efficiencies, impact on the public, and savings on
sewer maintenance costs. An evaluation
will also be performed to determine whether the City would be better served by
changing the focus of existing staff to concentrate mainly on the
implementation of BMPs or by enhancing the current program with additional
staff for this component.
11. Concentration
Based Limits
The City of Ottawa has a Water Efficiency Program,
which encourages water conservation.
The reduced flows resulting from this practice may inadvertently cause
the discharges from some industries to exceed some Sewer Use By-law
limits. In order to account for this,
it has been proposed that industries that can demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the General Manager that their by-law exceedances are solely caused by the
implementation of water conservation measures will be granted equivalent
concentration based limits. Specific
procedures for this will be outlined in the By-law Administration Policy.
Discharges to Storm Sewers
Storm sewers are meant to be used for the
conveyance of uncontaminated water, water from rainfall or other natural
precipitation, from the melting of snow or ice, or drainage from land. Typically, material in a storm sewer is
discharged directly to a body of water without treatment. The City is responsible for the quality of
the discharge from its storm sewers to the natural environment.
This section of the by-law applies only to the
discharge of stormwater runoff from industrial premises or to situations where
the discharge is solely for the purpose of disposing of matter. It does not apply to the runoff from most
parking lots or individual driveways. It
has been proposed that several new parameters be prohibited or limited from being
discharged. The proposed additions,
their discharge limits and their rationale can be found in Documents 2 and 3,
respectively. It should be noted that
specific exemptions have also been provided for discharges resulting solely
from street cleaning, hydrant flushing, and extinguishing fires.
It has been further proposed that the City has the
authority to request that an industry: perform studies on stormwater quality
and / or modify or construct stormwater facilities, and / or adopt and
implement pollution prevention measures related to storm sewer discharges. These are recommendations from the MOE Model
Sewer Use By-law and are consistent with CEPA’s pollution prevention directive.
Liquid Waste Transported to Sewage Works
This section deals with the disposal of waste which
is hauled to the Pickard Centre for treatment.
For the purpose of clarification, a specific exemption for hauled sewage
from domestic sources has been added to the by-law provided it does not contain
industrial, commercial sewage, or hazardous wastes. The only additional changes are that the City may now require
agreements for non-residential overstrength waste to recover treatment costs
and that wastes transported from outlying municipalities to a waste transfer
station within the City is deemed to be waste generated outside the City and
shall be manifested as such when hauled to the Pickard Centre.
Reporting and Self-Monitoring Requirements
This section describes the types of information
dischargers to the sewage works may be required to provide. It has been expanded somewhat and now has
specific provisions for self-monitoring of discharges, which is to be completed
at the expense of the industry.
Agreements
This section provides for discharge agreements,
which allow for the discharge of material which contains overstrength treatable
waste, and the discharge of material that has originated from a source other
than the City’s water distribution system, provided additional treatment fees
are paid to recover the costs of treating the material and sampling and
monitoring requirements are met.
Due to maintenance issues in the sewers and at the
wastewater treatment plant, it has been proposed that Special Discharge
Agreements no longer be available for discharges, which exceed the limits for
solvent extractable matter (Oil & Grease) of animal or vegetable
origin. To date, there have not been any agreements issued
for this parameter; therefore, there should be little or no impact to the
public.
It has also been proposed that agreements be issued
for the discharge of sludges to the Pickard Centre. Due to the concentrated nature of this waste, the agreements will
have to provide increased discharge limits for some non-treatable parameters, such
as metals. Staff will develop procedures
to ensure that the increased limits do not have a negative impact on the
wastewater treatment process, receiving waters, or biosolids. These procedures will be included in the
Sewer Use By-law Administration Policy.
Compliance Programs
This section provides for the discharge of
non-compliant waste provided the industry is in the process of installing
measures to bring the waste into compliance with the by-law limits. Regular progress reports along with self-monitoring
is also required. In cases where the
parameter in non-compliance is a treatable waste, payment of fees pursuant to a
Special Discharge Agreement is required.
It has been proposed that the payment of these fees may be reduced if an
industry undertakes to install onsite pretreatment to remediate the discharge
of the overstrength waste. In the event
of termination of the Compliance Program as a result of the industry failing to
diligently pursue the activities required in the Compliance Program, the
industry would be required to reimburse the City for the reduction accorded
them.
Sampling and Analytical Requirements
This section outlines the procedures to be used in
order to determine the characteristics or contents of the sewage,
uncontaminated water or stormwater. It
has been proposed that the list of suitable methods for analysis be increased
to include those in the MOE publication entitled “Protocols for the Sampling
and Analysis of Industrial/Municipal Wastewater and USEPA Methods in addition
to those adopted by the City and Standard Methods. A provision has also been added that enables the City to request
that self-monitoring data be performed by an accredited laboratory.
Spills
This section outlines the reporting requirements in
the event of a spill to the sewage works.
The major revision proposed requires that the responsible party do
everything reasonably possible to contain the spill, minimize damages and clean
up the spill. In the event that this
does not occur, the City is authorized to undertake the mitigation and recover
any associated costs from the responsible person.
General
This section contains general requirements for
those making use of the sewage works, including the installation and
maintenance of manholes and flow monitoring devices as well as rights of entry
and protection from damage. The
following briefly discusses the areas that elicited the most concern from
internal staff and the public during the consultation process and outlines the
resulting proposed revisions.
1. Condominium
Corporations
In order to address some of the difficulties
encountered when dealing with industrial condominiums, it has been proposed
that the individual or company responsible named on the water account be
responsible for sewer use issues. A
comment was received that this is not the proper approach to dealing with
condominium units, and that the responsibility for violations should be places
upon the particular unit owner.
Unfortunately, due to the set up of many condominium units, violations
could be a result of the combined discharges from several units making sole
responsibility difficult to prove.
2. Interceptors
The requirements proposed in the Sewer Use By-law
for grease, oil and sand interceptors are not new. Previously, they were contained in various municipal sewer by-laws
as well as the Plumbing Code. Their
inclusion in the Sewer Use By-law provides for ease of enforcement in existing
establishments. Food and automotive
establishments were advised of the proposed revision as part of the public
consultation process. To date, we have
received no comments.
3. Garbage
Grinders
The first draft of the by-law proposed that garbage
grinders be completely prohibited except by use in domestic residences whose
wastewater was not discharged to a combined sewer. Internal comments were
received requesting
a complete ban on garbage grinders as the kitchen waste undergoes fairly
expensive processing before ultimately being disposed of as solid waste. Manufactures of garbage grinders were
opposed to this.
A fact sheet published by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency indicates that the use of garbage grinders
increases septic tank loadings of suspended solids by 40 to 90 percent and
fats, oils and grease by 70 to 150 percent.
There is no reason to believe that the impact on sewage discharged to a
sewer would be any different. In
addition to discouraging the use of the City’s organic composting pilot
program, the use of garbage grinders would create additional loading to the wastewater
treatment plant, increasing the production of biosolids.
It has been proposed that garbage grinders be
banned in their entirety, with the exception of those that have been installed
prior to the enactment of the by-law.
4. Swimming
Pools
It has been proposed that swimming pool wastewater
not be discharged to a storm sewer nor storm drainage system, nor in a manner
that would cause: erosion, instability,
or a discharge onto an adjoining property.
5. Rights
of Entry
In response to a recommendation from an external
review of the by-law, the powers of compliance officers regarding rights of
entry and the gathering of information have been updated. All proposed changes are within the
authority provided by the Municipal Act.
Repeal
All municipal legislation respecting the discharge
of matter to the sewage works in the new City of Ottawa, including Part 5.2
“Sewers, Sewage Works and Control of Discharges” of the former Regional
Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton are repealed when this by-law comes into
effect.
Fees
The rationale for setting the fee for hauled waste
that is generated within the City and the fee for the discharge of water
generated from a source other than the City’s municipal supply has been that
they be equivalent to the sewer surcharge fee.
In 2003, the sewer surcharge was increased to 166% of the water
bill. Therefore it is recommended that
both these fees be increased to $0.94 per cubic metre of waste. It is further recommended that the fee for
hauled waste generated outside City of Ottawa boundaries be doubled to $17.88
per cubic meter of waste. The rationale
for this is provided in the companion report regarding the revision of the
City’s Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy, which has been submitted concurrent with
this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPLICATIONS
The revision of the Sewer Use By-law is a key
element in the strengthening of the
Sewer Use Program, which is a regulatory strategy aimed at reducing or
eliminating the discharge of inappropriate contaminants to the sewer system by
dealing with waste at its source. This helps
provide for favourable operating conditions in the sewage works, high quality
of biosolids and effluent from the wastewater treatment plant, and a safe work
environment for sewer workers. It also
serves as a mechanism to ensure that steps are being taken to maintain the
City’s compliance with environmental legislation such as the Fisheries Act,
Ontario Water Resources Act and the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
Rural residents not connected to the sewer system
will be faced with increased disposal fees for having their holding tanks or
septic tanks pumped out, which mirror the increased fees urban residents faced
when the sewer surcharge was increased in May 2002.
CONSULTATION
The
public consultation component of the Sewer Use By-law review was initiated in
October 2002, and consisted of several key activities. In addition to advertisements posted in the
Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit, notices were sent to over 2500 stakeholders to publicize
the by-law revision. In addition, the
draft Sewer Use By-law, two tables of discharge limits and the limit setting
rationale were posted on the City web site, requesting feedback.
In
October 2002, staff from Environmental Programs and Technical Support presented
a summary of the Sewer Use By-law review initiatives to the Environmental
Advisory Committee. Meetings were held
with representatives from the medical community, dental associations, funeral
home directors, waste management companies, and other industrial
facilities. Telephone follow-ups, and
in some cases, on-site meetings, were also conducted with the significant
industrial dischargers in the community who had not provided comments by the
deadline.
The
initial deadline for written comments was 01 November 2002. Upon request by various industry
representatives, this was later extended to 15 January 2003. The comments received, along with responses
from staff have been posted on the City web site for review along with the
final draft of the Sewer Use By-law.
It
should also be noted that the Section Head of Municipal Wastewater Effluent
with Environment Canada wrote that he strongly supported the need for
maintaining and enhancing municipal source control programs and sewer use
by-laws as an essential element in managing wastewater systems in Canada.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
The
proposed fee increases should result in additional annual revenues of
approximately $1,255,000.00.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DOCUMENT 2
Report
to / Rapport au :
Environmental
Services Committee
Comité
des services de l’environnement
and
Council / et au Conseil
Submitted
by/Soumis par: R.T. Leclair, General
Manager / Directrice générale
Contact/Personne-ressource: F. Petti, Manager / Gestionnaire
Environmental
Programs and Technical Support Branch/
Programmes
environnementaux et support technique
Utility
Services Branch / Direction des services publics
e-mail /courriel: Felice.Petti@ottawa.ca
|
|
Ref
N°: ACS2003-TUP-UTL-0007 |
SUBJECT: HAULED LIQUID WASTE STRATEGY
OBJET: STRATÉGIE RELATIVE AUX DÉCHETS
LIQUIDES TRANSPORTÉS
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That
the Environmental Services Committee and Council receive this report for
information.
Que
le Comité des services de l'environnement et le Conseil municipal prennent
connaissance du présent rapport.
The
management of hauled liquid waste is governed in Ottawa under the Sewer Use
By-law. The authority for this is
provided by the Municipal Act, which specifically allows municipalities
to regulate the discharge of matter into the sewage works and recover
associated fees.
Hauled liquid waste is composed mainly of the contents from septic tanks, holding tanks, and portable toilets. While it constitutes a relatively minor percentage of the total flows entering the City of Ottawa's Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre (Pickard Centre) waste treatment plant, hauled liquid waste is much more concentrated than domestic sewage and constitutes a much higher percentage of the organic and solids loadings at the plant.
Most
of the problems associated with the disposal of hauled liquid waste result from
its increased strength, in comparison to domestic sewage. When hauled liquid waste is introduced to
the wastewater treatment plant, it exerts additional loading which results in
increased operating costs, solids production, and biosolids treatment
costs. Unless properly managed, it may
also adversely impact the treatment process, quality of the biosolids, and the
receiving waters.
In
1993, the former Regional Council directed staff to develop a strategy on
hauled liquid waste management and to report on the establishment of a disposal
fee, tools to monitor and control the waste being discharged, the need for remote
disposal sites and the acceptance of waste from outlying municipalities. Since that time, a disposal fee with
differential rates for in City and out of City waste has been established, and
mandatory permitting and manifesting requirements have been implemented.
Since
the implementation of the City’s Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy in 1996, the
volume of hauled liquid waste transported to the Pickard Centre has increased
five fold. Of the more than 500 million
litres of waste received annually, approximately 30 percent is generated
outside City limits. From 2000 to 2001,
the volume of waste generated outside the City of Ottawa increased by 84
percent, as opposed to only a 13 percent increase in waste generated within
City boundaries.
This
trend is expected to continue. With few
exceptions, most municipalities with wastewater treatment facilities indicate
that they are at capacity and unable to accept hauled liquid waste. The required upgrades or expansions to
accommodate the disposal of hauled liquid waste are cost prohibitive. This has made them increasingly dependent on
the City of Ottawa to deal with their liquid waste, resulting in a strain on
the existing septage receiving facility that was never designed to accommodate
the volume of waste currently being received nor the associated traffic.
A
revision of the Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy is required to address issues
related to imported waste, disposal sites, cost recovery, and monitoring
requirements.
Staff
initiated consultation with the general public and the waste hauling community
in the fall of 2002 with respect to the issues outlined above. A study was also commissioned to investigate
the feasibility of remote disposal sites in the City, and required upgrades to
the current facility. While some issues
were relatively straightforward, it quickly became apparent that the advent of
the Nutrient Management Act, 2001 has major implications with respect to
the City’s continued acceptance of imported waste, disposal site requirements
and, potentially, plant capacity.
There
is insufficient data currently available to evaluate the impacts of imported
hauled liquid waste on the wastewater treatment plant. Volumes of imported waste being received are
increasing rapidly from year to year, and the decreasing use of land
application of sewage has resulted in a need for other disposal options for
outlying municipalities. Due to a lack
of other disposal facilities, the Pickard Centre is currently treating waste
generated in an area roughly bordered by Gracefield, Hawkesbury, Kingston and
Eganville. Because this area increases
annually, it is difficult to estimate what future quantities of waste the City
might be requested to treat.
A
meeting with Canada’s Capital Municipal Gateway Association (CCMGA) took place
in March 2003, and identified common concerns related to the goal of finding
long-term solutions to this issue. It
was agreed that the public’s interest demands that a sustainable long-term
solution to the problem be developed. A
motion was submitted that the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) be requested to
undertake a comprehensive study of septage waste disposal options for Eastern
Ontario, and that the options for disposal identified receive appropriate provincial
funding for a timely implementation.
Staff
is awaiting the outcome of these initiatives, and have requested estimates of
the increased volumes of imported waste expected to be generated by outlying
municipalities prior to making recommendations with respect to the issue of
imported waste. A report will be
submitted to Council once all of the information has been received.
The
advent of the Nutrient Management Act, 2001 also has the potential to
dramatically increase the amount of imported waste currently being received at
the Pickard Centre. It provides for a
five-year phase-out of the land application of untreated septage, a practice
currently used by many outlying municipalities to dispose of their sewage
waste. Under the Nutrient Management
Act, 2001, municipalities will be required to develop a Municipal Septage
Strategy for septage and submit it to the MOE.
Three municipalities have already requested that the City of Ottawa
become a temporary or even permanent part of their solution. It is also anticipated that many of the
fifteen municipalities currently relying on the Pickard Centre for disposal of
their wastewater treatment plant sludges will follow suit.
Estimates
from local municipalities are that truck traffic to the Pickard Centre would
increase exponentially over the next few years if their wastes were brought to
the City’s wastewater treatment plant for disposal. The current facility could not accommodate this contingency. At the meeting with the CCMGA, it was
further agreed that the Minister of the Environment and local MPPs be advised
of the imminent crisis and requested to attend a meeting with elected officials
from the Gateway Association to discuss how best to address the situation.
An
external study as to the feasibility of remote disposal sites took place in the
fall of 2002, and concluded that this was not a recommended option due to the
lack of a proper location and high capital and operating costs. The study recommended, instead, that the
City upgrade its current facility, providing the overall best value of
investment. Public consultation with
waste haulers indicated that the majority are in support of this option.
The
study and consultation with waste haulers gave rise to various mechanisms that
could be implemented at the Pickard Centre to improve the conditions at the
existing disposal site. Several
initiatives, such as grading, traffic rerouting and City supplied hoses, could
be implemented relatively easily and cost effectively, to alleviate some
problems in the short term. These
initiatives range in cost from $5,000 to $50,000. Long-term solutions included other initiatives, such as the
construction of a new facility or disposal bays. These would require resources in excess of one million dollars.
Staff
will not have a good understanding of the future requirements for plant
capacity or the septage disposal facility until the impacts of the Nutrient
Management Act, 2001 are known, and a decision regarding the treatment of
imported waste is reached. At that
time, the most appropriate solutions for the disposal facility will be
evaluated and a report submitted to Council.
Treating
hauled liquid waste requires the removal of significant additional organic
material in comparison to domestic sewage.
The current fees for the disposal of hauled liquid waste are $0.515 per
cubic metre for waste generated within the City and $8.94 per cubic metre for
waste generated outside the City. The
former Regional Council opted not to recover full treatment costs for waste
generated within the City limits, but rather to charge rural residents the
equivalent of the sewer surcharge.
Waste generated outside City limits is billed at twice the averages
treatment costs.
Since
the fee for the disposal of hauled liquid waste generated within the City is
based on the sewer surcharge rate, during the upcoming review of the 2004
budget, it will be recommended that this fee be increased to $0.94 per cubic
metre to reflect the increase that came into effect in May 2002. As can be seen in the table in
Document 1, even with this increase, the fees to residents of the City of
Ottawa to treat their hauled waste would remain among the lowest in the
Country.
Also
evident from the table in Document 1 is the fact that of one-half of those
municipalities surveyed, some of which rely on privately run facilities, charge
in excess of $15 per cubic metres for the disposal of hauled liquid waste. In light of this, and the factors outlined
below, the fee for the disposal of imported waste will be re-evaluated as part
of the budget review for 2004.
An
increase in the fee for imported waste would encourage municipalities to deal
with the Province in resolving the waste management issues created by the
implementation of the Nutrient Management Act, 2001 rather than relying
on the City of Ottawa for a solution.
This would result in the added benefit of discouraging excessive truck
traffic and associated air emissions to the environment resulting from the
transportation of waste.
It
would also encourage the treatment of waste at source rather than the use of
the Pickard Centre as a more economical means for the disposal of imported
waste. For example, we currently
receive increasing amounts from Quebec because the wastewater treatment plant
in Gatineau charges $27.01 per cubic metre of waste in comparison to the $8.94
per cubic metre charged at the Pickard Centre.
In
addition, even when hauling costs are factored in, the relatively low disposal
fees for imported waste also makes the Pickard Centre one of the most
economical means for liquid waste disposal for many cities across Eastern
Ontario. As a result, there is no
incentive for the public sector to create business opportunities in the field
of liquid waste management.
An
increase in the disposal fees for imported waste would also encourage
municipalities to ensure they have adequate means to treat waste prior to
approving additional development, and assist the City in recovering the
potential losses of development fees and spin-off economic benefits of growth
lost when residents choose to locate in municipalities with lower taxation
rates than those of the City of Ottawa, yet still choose to make use of our
municipal services.
While
the volume of hauled liquid waste has increased dramatically over the past few
years, staffing levels have decreased since the inception of the Sewer-Use
Program. As a result, the City of
Ottawa does not currently have an adequate program to track and confirm the
sources of hauled liquid waste. The
current program results in the audit of less than 3 percent of the loads
disposed of at the Pickard Centre, in comparison to the 10 percent recommended
by Best Management Practices. On-site
sampling is rarely done.
An
improved monitoring program would provide better control of the waste entering
the wastewater treatment plant and ensure that real treatment costs may be
properly assessed, as will be required by Bill 175. Although it has not been proclaimed as of yet, the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is recommending that all Ontario municipalities
move towards full cost recovery for both water and wastewater systems, in
anticipation of this event.
Increasing
the audits of the loads of hauled liquid waste received would also serve to
ensure that the appropriate disposal fees are collected. There are indications that some companies
misrepresent the source of their waste in order to avoid paying the increased
disposal fees for waste that has been generated outside the City
boundaries. This results in lost
revenues and improper record keeping. It is
anticipated that this practice will become more and more common if the proposed
fee increases are adopted. Staff are
looking at options to increase monitoring to the Best Management Practices
level.
Improper
disposal of hauled liquid waste may result in discharges to the natural
environment. Improved monitoring will
minimize the risk of the disposal of waste that may interfere with the
wastewater treatment process or pass directly to the natural environment,
contributing toward the City’s compliance with environmental legislation.
Public
consultation was initiated in October 2002.
Notices were placed in the Citizen and Le Droit newspapers inviting the
public to provide comments, and letters describing the initiative were mailed
directly to waste haulers, some clients, and the mayors of outlying
municipalities. Waste haulers were also
surveyed individually over the telephone.
A
meeting was held with Canada’s Capital Municipal Gateway Association in March
2003, which brought to light the complexities involved with imported
waste. Additional public consultation
will be required to resolve this issue.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
Changes
to the fee structure for hauled liquid waste will be the subject of a rate
review as part of the 2004 Budget discussion.
Document
1: Comparison of Hauled Liquid
Waste Disposal Fees Across Canada
DOCUMENT 1
CITY |
COST ($
PER 1000 L) |
COMMENTS |
Ottawa: Current Under Consideration |
0.515
/ $ 8.94 0.94
/ $17.88 |
Partial
Cost Recovery. |
Winnipeg,
Manitoba |
1.00 |
All
accepted waste. Not full cost
recovery. ~ 15% of cost. |
Halton,
Ontario |
1.32 |
All
accepted waste. Not full cost
recovery. |
Peel,
Ontario |
2.14 |
All
accepted waste. O&M recovery; no
capital reinvestment. |
London,
Ontario |
2.20
/ 9.90 |
Septic
Waste / Leachate Full cost recovery. |
Oxford
County, Ontario |
3.30 |
All
accepted waste. |
Strathroy-Caradoc,
Ontario |
3.67 |
All
accepted waste. |
Hamilton-Wentworth,
Ontario |
3.85
– 6.74 |
Fee
based on truck size. Aim for full
cost recovery. |
Niagara,
Ontario |
4.40
/ 8.80 |
Residential
/ Commercial. Aim for full cost
recovery. |
Kincardine,
Ontario |
4.40
– 8.80 / 8.80 – 17.60 |
In-region
/ out of region. |
Chatham-Kent,
Ontario |
6.60
/ 13.20 |
In-region
/ out of region. |
York,
Ontario |
9.90 |
All
accepted waste. |
Durham,
Ontario |
10.08 |
All
accepted waste. Full O&M cost
recovery. |
Gatineau,
Quebec |
15.44
/ 27.01 |
In
region / out of region. |
Montreal,
Quebec |
16.11 |
All
accepted waste. Full cost recovery. |
Windsor,
Ontario |
19.80 |
All
accepted waste. |
Calgary,
Alberta |
22.40 |
All
accepted waste. Aim for full cost
recovery. |
Edmonton,
Alberta |
26.68
– 66.70 |
All
accepted waste. Full cost recovery. |
Toronto,
Ontario |
27.86 |
All
accepted waste. |
Victoria,
BC |
39.60
/ 28.60 |
In
region / out of region. Privately
run. |
Central
Elgin, BC |
33.77
/ load |
All
accepted waste. |
Victoria,
BC |
46.19 |
Privately
run. Fats, oils, grease. |
Victoria,
BC |
50.59 |
Privately
run. Pit toilet, car wash. |
HAULED LIQUID
WASTE STRATEGY REVIEW
EXAMEN DE LA STRATÉGIE SUR LES DÉCHETS LIQUIDES
TRANSPORTÉS
ACS2004-TUP-UTL-0017
Deferred from 14 Dec
04/11 Jan 05 meetings
Richard Hewitt,
Acting/Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services (PWS), Ken Brothers,
Director, Utility Services, Fel Petti, Manager, Environment Programs and
Technical Services, David McCartney, Manager, Waste Water and Drainage, and Debbie MacLennan, Program Supervisor, Sewer Use
By-Law, appeared
before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 14 December 2004. Following
a PowerPoint presentation by Mr. Petti, which was circulated and is held on
file with the City Clerk, Committee members posed questions, with the main
points summarized below:
·
The Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) has strict regulations with respect to septic systems; they
are dealing more with the issue of the pump outs and ensuring the septic
systems are working properly, but with respect to whether there are too many
septic systems, that is an issue best left with MOE. MOE signs off on estate lots, but may have delegated that to the
Conservation Authorities (CA) through recent legislation.
·
Staff will continue to
monitor and sample to better understand the types of waste that arrives at the
Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre (ROPEC). The blended calculation takes into consideration the concentration
of the holding tank. When staff reviews that blended rate on an annual basis,
it will incorporate information collected over the year to ensure the rate
charged does reflect the charge to treat.
If the concentration is lower, then the treatment cost will drop and be
reflected in the blended rate. If an
owner wants to deal directly with ROPEC to have their waste delivered to the
site, the City could sample and better calculate the actual treatment cost for
that particular load. That provision is
provided for in the Sewer Use By-Law.
·
Based on the numbers
established ($6.14), it is anticipated to take 7-8 years to reach full cost
recovery. There will only be an impact
on the rate side the first year since there will be a full year of revenue next
year and that is one reason the fee structure has been increased to 3x for
waste outside the City. That will then
offset the impact on the rate supported side earlier than if the City had
remained at 2x the rate. Staff has
factored in a drop in volume as a result of the increased rate; obviously there
will be less haulage to the plant, but even when that reduction is factored in,
next year’s revenue will meet treatment costs.
·
On Councillor
Bellemare’s Motion that staff be directed to characterize the hauled liquid
waste disposed of at the R.O. Pickard Environmental Centre over the coming
year to determine concentration of content, and report back to Planning and
Environment Committee in the fall of 2006 with recommendations on how to fairly
reflect actual treatment costs to individual businesses, Mr. Petti
advised staff intended to conduct that monitoring over the next year. He added that staff would continue to look
at the impact on the blended rate rather than a two-tier rate.
·
The impact of traffic (costs associated) on the surrounding
roads has not been included, although the cost to upgrade ROPEC and the
roadwork around that facility (on site) has been included. On Councillor Bellemare’s Motion that reads Whereas the septage receiving facility at the Robert
O. Pickard Environmental Centre was never designed to accommodate the volume of
hauled liquid waste currently being received nor the associated truck traffic
affecting area roads; That staff examine future transportation requirements in
connection with the increasing truck traffic to the Pickard Centre and
determine the appropriate level of cost recovery through disposal fees, Mr. Hewitt advised that as part of the process to
report back, staff could include this component and certainly look at the
related transportation issues and determine whether there are major impacts
and, if so, bring back recommendations relative thereto.
The
Committee heard from the following delegations:
Rob Taylor, Senior Analyst, Canadian Federation Independent Business
(CFIB); Claude Pryor, Pryor Metals; John O’Brien, Health Craft Products; Marco
Campagna, Hovey Industries; Maurizio Campagna, Camtag were present in opposition to the staff
recommendations and copies of their presentations are held on file with the
City Clerk. CFIB represents the
interests of 105,000 small or medium sized business owners across Canada (over
40,000 in Ontario and 2,000 in Ottawa).
Today, Mr. Taylor represented the interest of a handful of members
located in the Albion Road Industrial Park and the hundreds of Ottawa residents
they employ. These companies will
suffer a severe financial impact if the hauled liquid waste strategy is adopted
without amendment. A comprehensive
PowerPoint Presentation was presented, circulated and is held on file with the
City Clerk. Mr. Taylor thanked
Councillor Deans and her staff for their assistance in attempting to arrive at
a fair and equitable solution. His
presentation covered three issues; the importance of small business to the
community and the economy; the impact of the proposed fee increases on the
businesses at the Albion Road Industrial Park; and, a proposal for a fair and
equitable solution to the problem. From
the City’s perspective, it is losing money on sewage treatment. ROPEC staff is unable to distinguish between
the waste in holding and septic tanks and proposed a blended rate, based on the
highest concentration. From CFIB’s
perspective, waste from holding tanks is similar to sewage from households and
businesses hooked up to the sewer system.
Holding tank owners have to pay between $100-150/load to have their tank
pumped and hauled away at a frequency as high as three times per week for some
businesses. Land was purchased at the
Albion Road site on the understanding they would be hooked up to municipal water
and sewer; therefore, room for septic beds was never considered. The proposal before PEC today is that what
enters holding tanks at these businesses is similar to what enters the sewer
system at Ottawa businesses and residents (approximately $1.05 to $1.10/cubic
metre). Yet, these businesses are being
asked to pay $6.64/cubic metre by the City, plus the high cost of transporting
it to ROPEC. The proposal is quite
simple; to determine a fair rate for holding tank waste applicable to the 230
locations within Ottawa. The fees
listed in the hauled liquid waste strategy be charged to everyone, yet
locations with holding tanks submit invoices to the City for a refund of the
difference between the two rates. This
is a fair compromise, with the reporting onus on the individual, not the
City. The City could ask for previous
year’s records to monitor volume consistency.
A letter was forwarded to Councillor Deans and circulated to PEC, which
is held on file with the City Clerk.
In
response to Councillor Deans on the Motion Councillor Bellemare put forward on
her behalf, Mr. Taylor indicated CFIB would support that Motion.
Claude
Pryor thanked Councillor Deans for her initiative. 26 years ago Pryor Metal established a manufacturing enterprise
in the Leitrim Industrial Park with three employees, 2,000 square feet of
rented space, used equipment and one customer.
It was a family-run business; today the company has 175 full-time
employees, plus 25 summer students. It
has established a reputation as a leader in the industry through its commitment
to excellence in quality, on time delivery and competitive pricing. Since the 2000 meltdown, the market place
has become very price sensitive; many jobs are won as a result of Pryor Metals’
aggressive competitive approach to satisfying customer needs, who expect them
to implement continuous improvement processes that eliminate waste. The report ignores some very important
numbers; e.g. 5% of 230 companies will be affected by a $5,000 increase. In their park alone more than 500 full time
are being affected by this increase.
John
O’Brien, provided a written presentation that was circulated and is on file
with the City Clerk. Mr. O’Brien
thanked Councillor Deans as well.
Health Craft Products is also located in the Albion and Leitrim Business
Park. Health Craft Products designs and
manufactures home health products and has moved three times, to larger premises
each time. Over the last two years, as
Mr. Pryor mentioned business has been difficult; the price of steel and much of
their raw material has increased 80-100%; the exchange rate has had a
significant impact on their profitability and they have gone from a modest
profit to a loss over the last year.
This is concurrent with learning of a 1,250% increase in one of their
key utilities. As a resident, he could
determine he pays $1.12/cubic metre for the waste generated from his home. As a business owner, if he were to
disconnect from that sewer pipeline, it would stand to reason he would pay less
than that amount because they are physically transporting that waste. If he were concentrating his waste, he would
expect to pay multiple dollars per cubic metre, which stands to reason. The City approach was to call for a blended
rate of $6, which accounts for the higher volume of the holding tank
waste. It is too difficult to separate
those who deliver concentrated waste vs. the holding tank waste. Although the 1,200%+ increase would be phased
in, which is appreciated, it is only delaying the agony for them. As a business owner, he sells $50 and $600
items; it is a little like him telling his clients that he knew they wanted the
$50 item, but he had a fixed price list of $600 for everything. He could not get away with that. The argument presented that it is difficult
to administer is appreciated; however, in conversations with his liquid waste
hauler, he obtained a manifest used at ROPEC.
The document contains information relative to the specific hauler and
places for six individual loads on the one sheet. It is very specific as to where the liquid waste is coming from,
the volume and whether it is septic tank or holding tank waste. There is the challenge when the hauler picks
up from holding and septic tanks, but it can be addressed. Typically, tanks in their park are large and
can occupy a complete truck load and more.
It seems this is the workings of a solution.
Marco
Campagna also thanked Councillor Deans.
Hovey Industries has been in business for 27 years and located in the
Albion/Leitrim Business since the early 1990’s with two properties in that
Park. There are currently 59 employees,
down from 71, two years ago. Hovey is a
manufacturing company and builds a specialized railroad product for customers
like CN/CP Rail and Union Pacific in the U.S. and it also designs engineered
metal fabrication products for local clients.
He provided a brief overview of their market place in the industry. On the metal fab side they are competing
against larger firms from Montreal and Toronto who have larger economies of scale
and are clearly more efficient in some of the processes. In addition, they have been adversely
affected by the strong Canadian dollar, with some railroad customers in the
U.S., and by dramatic steel prices.
Sales have been relatively flat, but margins have dropped by 50% and
costs have increased. Cost increases
like the liquid waste disposal fee are especially hard to take when they are
considered unfair and unreasonable. The
proposal calls for increases in the disposal fee until the fee fully recovers
treatment cost. If the cost to treat
waste from Hovey is more than the typical sewer waste, then Hovey should pay
more. However, he did not believe their
waste is so vastly different from typical sewer waste that it justifies a cost
above the sewer waste and certainly not 1,250%. If their waste is not different, then this increase is not a cost
recovery fee. Ironically, in a few
years, they will be mere metres from homes (Finlay Creek) that will be hooked
up to the sewer system and paying a fraction of the cost for Hovey to haul
away. There was a meeting with the
Manager of the Environmental Programs and it was quite discouraging when early
in the meeting, he dismissed their proposal, which was based on a fair and
reasonable premise using a rebate program, as a non-starter with the City’s
finance and admin staff. Further, he
categorized their concept of fairness and reasonableness as theoretical. An increase on this scale, even over the
years contemplated, is not theoretical in practical terms, it limits their
ability to compete. If the waste from
Hovey is no different then that from these City office’s, they are in effect
subsidizing the sewer system, since they are not connected to it in any way. In conclusion, he wished to say that Mr.
Taylor from CFIB has spoken well on their behalf and presented a proposal that
is clearly fair and reasonable.
In
response to Councillor Feltmate on the charges across the Province, Mr.
Campagna did not have an issue with paying on a cost recovery basis. Councillor Feltmate posited that if any
business was located outside the municipality, the business would be paying
more. Mr. Hewitt posited there are
some aspects that must be taken into consideration. One is that it is staff’s belief that even holding tank waste is
in fact a more costly material to treat than is the material that comes through
the City’s sewers for a variety of reasons.
The City is looking at a phase in solution; the first year of that phase
in comes out to be fairly close to what would not be disputed as a reasonable
fee. The opportunity is before the City
to spend the year as indicated with regard to reviews and evaluations to see
whether there are other directions staff would like to bring forward within the
year and there is already the facility within the By-Law for specific
arrangements under certain circumstances.
Whether that meets all the requirements of the delegations before PEC,
he was not sure, but the year would allow staff the opportunity to fully
evaluate whether it does or not and, if it doesn’t, whether there are
opportunities to work on other solutions.
Vice-Chair
Feltmate chaired this portion of this item.
Councillor
Thompson noted that this year would allow staff to address the concerns, since
everyone does understand there is a difference and there is a business owner in
Osgoode Ward who has a plaza in the City and one on a holding tank. He can best compare the difference. Having heard the concerns, the delegations
did accept the Motion presented by Councillor Bellemare on behalf of Councillor
Deans that would accept the first phase of the raise and that at this time next
year there would be a fair take on this.
Dale Harley, Osgoode Ward Business Alliance, represented businesses in Osgoode Ward with both
septic systems as well as holding tanks.
He was in support of the staff report and thanked staff and Councillors,
particularly Councillors Thompson and Deans for listening to their concerns and
having that reflected in the revised staff report. First, as rural businesses, they were not opposed to
cost-recovery or paying their fair share of the cost of services. However, as mentioned by the previous group,
the original proposal translated into a 1,250% increase, which was not acceptable,
particularly when taking into consideration the whole idea was to offset a
$500,000 shortfall. If that original
proposal had been approved, a significant number of rural businesses would have
had to close because of that cost impact.
One of the businesses mentioned by Councillor Thompson, as an example,
in a rural 12-unit strip mall would have seen their costs rise from $1,600/year
to $24,000/year, which could not be passed on to the respective businesses in
the mall. Those important rural businesses
would have been lost. The proposal to
increase $1/year is reasonable, workable and enables the City to meet its
cost-recovery objectives; as the previous group, they respect the possible
two-tier system, recognizing the costs associated with holding tanks vs. septic
systems would be appreciated. In
closing, he encouraged PEC to support the staff report. As a taxpayer, he would like to see this
resolved because $.53 is not fair and it is time they paid their fair share.
Tom MacWilliam, Gloucester Chamber of Commerce and National Capital Business
Alliance, was present in support of
a move to full cost recovery. As
businesses, they believe they should be paying their fair share, but do object
to paying something greater. The original
proposal put forward was totally unacceptable and would have put an inordinate
amount of pressure on business and seen a number of businesses close or
re-locate. They were very pleased to
see this was tabled and thanked Councillors Thompson and Deans as well as the
other rural Councillors for their support.
They are very much in support of the phase in, but would like to see it
done fairly. He was at a total loss to
understand how it cannot be monitored, when a manifest is provided every time a
truck pulls up. It would be a
relatively simple matter to require trucks to either haul liquid waste from a
holding tank or from a septic system.
Obviously, the trucks would perhaps have to vary their routes or pick up
schedules, but he did not believe that would be an impossibility. He questioned the need for two full time
equivalent staff to monitor this over a period of time, given the information
that is provided in the manifest. The
Gloucester Chamber of Commerce and National Capital Business Alliance do
support the phase in process, want to see it done fairly and think there is a
need to look at the differentiation between the holding tank pump outs and
sewage.
Responding
to Councillor Bellemare on his Motion to have staff examine the actual
transportation requirements in the future, Mr. MacWilliam believed that was an
excellent point since the amount of truck traffic has increased.
The
Committee received the following correspondence:
·
Email dated 22 March
2005 from Glenn Scobie
·
Email dated 14 March
2005 from Victor Grostern, Econome Inc.
Councillor
Deans thanked staff for working with the rural Councillors to more adequately
address this issue. The original report
was completely unacceptable to the rural businesses, with a 1,250% increase in
cost that was insurmountable for many businesses. Staff did work closely with Councillors Thompson, El-Chantiry,
Jellett and herself and the recommendations before Committee are vastly
improved and more acceptable to the rural businesses. But, there is still a significant fairness factor that has not
been fully addressed. That became clear
to her when she approached the businesses in the Albion Business Park. The main point not addressed is the issue of
the difference between the density in a septic vs. that in a holding tank. Septic tanks are pumped out possibly once every
two years, therefore the cost, even if increased 1,250%, is not that
insurmountable. But, a holding tank
pumped out three times/week lumped in with septic tanks at $6.50/cubic metre is
not fair. She proposed and Councillor
Bellemare has agreed to move on her behalf that the City look at this issue
over the next year to characterize the hauled liquid waste disposed at ROPEC
and report back to PEC with recommendations on how to fairly reflect the actual
treatment costs to individual businesses.
That moves away from the blended rate, which is not fair to holding tank
owners. The Albion Industrial Park
businesses have holding tanks because they believed 20 years ago they would be
hooked up to City services and the businesses were constructed without room for
septic beds. They are still without
services. She was aware staff is
reluctant and there are challenges, but there are ways of characterizing the
waste and separating it out and the City must be fair to these businesses as it
moves forward. She asked PEC to support
the Motion and recommendations in the staff report.
Councillor
Hunter was concerned with the additional Motion by Councillor Bellemare to
examine future transportation requirements.
Two things concern him; one is that staff examine future transportation
requirements, which generally means that staff hire a consultant. It then suggests determining the appropriate
level of cost recovery through disposal fees.
Vehicles using public roads and highways pay high gasoline and diesel
fuel tax, which is supposed to be focussed on the maintenance of roads. The decision has been made to direct those
monies elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
Lastly, it sets a dangerous precedent.
If the City is going to target trucks on roads in this Business Park,
what about the Merivale Business Park and those in Kanata and Ottawa South,
etc. He understands exactly where
Councillor Bellemare is coming from, but it is a dangerous road and he would
suggest that direction not be taken, now or in the foreseeable future. Councillor Harder also would not support
that Motion and mentioned the tanker trucks that drive through
Knoxdale-Merivale and 60-100 tankers that haul leachate from Trail Road through
many roads (in different wards) down to ROPEC.
With on site treatment, that will no longer take place.
In
response to a query from Councillor Bellemare as a result of Councillor
Hunter’s concerns, Mr. Hewitt did not anticipate hiring a consultant; he was
looking at a straightforward evaluation of traffic volumes, in-house.
Moved by Councillor M. Bellemare:
Whereas the septage receiving
facility at the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre was never designed to
accommodate the volume of hauled liquid waste currently being received nor the
associated truck traffic affecting area roads;
That staff examine future
transportation requirements in connection with the increasing truck traffic to
the Pickard Centre and determine the appropriate level of cost recovery through
disposal fees.
CARRIED
Yeas (7): Councillors M. Bellemare, G.
Bédard, D. Holmes, H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Hume, P. Feltmate
NAYS (2): Councillors J. Harder, G. Hunter
Moved by Councillor M. Bellemare:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed
to characterize the hauled liquid waste disposed of at the R.O. Pickard
Environmental Centre over the coming year to determine concentration of
content, and report back to Planning and Environment Committee in the fall of
2006 with recommendations on how to fairly reflect actual treatment costs to individual
businesses.
CARRIED
The Committee approved the
recommendations as amended:
That
the Planning and Environmental Services Committee recommend Council approve the followingat:
1.
The
City of Ottawa continue accepting hauled liquid waste generated outside the
City boundaries, with priority given to in-City waste, until the
impacts of the Nutrient
Management Act, 2001 can be quantified;
for
as
long as the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre can accommodate the
waste;
2.
The
disposal fee for hauled liquid waste generated within the City boundaries be increased from
$0.53 per cubic metre to $1.53 per cubic metre, effective
01 July 2005as
of
01 January 2005, and
by $1.00 per cubic metre annually thereafter until the fee fully recovers treatment costs;
3.
The
disposal fee for hauled liquid waste generated outside City boundaries be
increased from $9.21 per cubic metre to $19.92 per cubic metre,
effective as of
01 JanuarJulyy 2005 and be revised annually to reflect
current data, including any inflationary effects; and
1.
The
Robert
O. Pickard
Environmental Centre continues to be the only
location for the disposal of hauled liquid waste in the City; Staff be
directed to further investigate the implications of the proposed changes to the
Nutrient Management Act, 2001 prior to submitting a final report with
recommendations on the direction of the Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy;
4.
Disposal fees be set to include fundinga
levy to be set aside to upgrade
and maintain the hauled waste disposal facility, to alleviate environmental
and health and safety
concerns;
5.
The
hauled liquid waste monitoring program be increased to include the analysis of
10% of the loads received and that the sources of the waste be sampled
onsite, in keeping with Best Management Practices;
6.
Disposal
fees be set to include funding for the staffing of an additional full time position
to deal with the
increas ed
workload resulting from the aadministeration of the Hauled Liquid Waste
Strategy;
7.
The Sewer Use By-law be revised to reflect any
change in disposal fees; and
8.
Two full time positions be approved to provide for
appropriate auditing of the hauled liquid waste, funding to be provided by
revenues generated from the acceptance of imported waste, as outlined in this
report.
9.
That staff examine future transportation requirements in
connection with the increasing truck traffic to the Pickard Centre and
determine the appropriate level of cost recovery through disposal fees.
10.
That staff be directed to
characterize the hauled liquid waste disposed of at the R.O. Picard
Environmental Centre over the coming year to determine concentration of
content, and report back to Planning and Environment Committee in the fall of
2006 with recommendations on how to fairly reflect actual treatment costs to
individual businesses.
CARRIED as amended