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

Tel./Tél. 580-2424, extension/poste 22609

e-mail/courriel: Ken.Brothers@ottawa.caPatrick.McNally@.ottawa.ca

 

 

Ref N°:  ACS20043-TUP-UTL-00170008

 

 

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;

 

 

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

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.

 

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Recommendation - 21 April 2005

 

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.

 

BACKGROUND

 

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.

 

 

Imported Waste

 

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.

 

 

 

Disposal Sites

 

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.

 

Monitoring Program

 

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.

 

 

 

Cost Recovery

 

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

$12.286.14

$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.

 

Monitoring Program

 

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 IMPLICATIONS

 

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.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

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.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1:            Comparison of Hauled Liquid Waste Disposal Fees Across Canada

Document 2:            Report ACS2003-TUP-UTL-007 – “Hauled Liquid Waste Strategy”

 

Disposition

 

Sewer Use Program staff will be responsible for the notification and collection of increased fees outlined in this report.  investigating the implications of the proposed recommendations of the Nutrient Management Act, 2001 and for increasing the monitoring program for hauled liquid waste.  There is currently no need to communicate the decision to the public. The outcome will be tabled in a report to Council when the information becomes available.  

 

 

 


Comparison of Hauled Liquid Waste Disposal Fees Across Canada

 

CITY

COST

($ PER 1000 L)

COMMENTS

Ottawa, Ontario (proposed new fee)

0.94 / 17.88

Partial Cost Recovery.

Winnipeg, Manitoba

1.00

All accepted waste.  Not full cost recovery. ~ 15% of cost. recovery

Barrie, Ontario

2.50 / 7.00

Holding tank / septic tank

Norfolk County, Ontario

2.53 / 9.46

Holding tank / septic tank;

Halton, Ontario

2.201.32

All accepted waste.  Not full cost recovery; .

Peel, Ontario

2.5814

All accepted waste.  O&M recovery; no capital reinvestmentt;.

Kawartha Lakes, Ontario

3.97 / 6.61

Residential / commercial

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.

Kingston, OntarioHamilton-Wentworth, Ontario

5.163.85 – 6.74

Fee based on truck size.  Aim for full cost recovery.

Penetanguishene, Ontario

5.25

 

London, Ontario

5.29 / 13.23

In City / Out of City -  Full cost recovery.

Niagara, Ontario

6.354.40 / 10.588.80

Residential / Commercial - .  Aim for full cost recovery.Fee to double 2005;

Chatham-Kent, OntarioKincardine, Ontario

6.60 / 13.204.40 – 8.80 / 8.80 – 17.60

In-region / out of region.In-region / out of region.

MidlandChatham-Kent, Ontario

6.616.60 / 13.20

In-region / out of region.

Ottawa, Ontario (proposed new fees)

6.64 / 19.92

In City / Out of City -  Full Cost Recovery.

York, Ontario

9.90

All accepted waste.

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

All accepted waste.  Full cost recovery.

Windsor, Ontario

19.8019.80

All accepted waste.

Calgary, Alberta

22.40

All accepted waste.  Aim for full cost recovery.

Belleville, OntarioEdmonton, Alberta

26.4026.68 – 66.70

All accepted waste.  Full cost recovery.

Toronto, Ontario

27.86

All accepted waste.

Victoria, BC

28.60 / 39.6039.60 / 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.

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.

 

Hauled Waste

(inside City)

Hauled Waste (outside City)

Sanitary Sewer Agreements

Combined Agreements

Total

 

$50,000

 

 

$1,000,000

 

$25,000

 

$180,000

 

$1,255,000

 


                          DOCUMENT 2

 

Report to / Rapport au :

 

Environmental Services Committee

Comité des services de l’environnement

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

25 August 2003 / le 25 août 2003

 

Submitted by/Soumis par:  R.T. Leclair, General Manager / Directrice générale

Transportation, Utilities and Public Works / Transport, Services et travaux publics

 

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

Tel./Tél. 580-2424, extension/poste 22226

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.

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité des services de l'environnement et le Conseil municipal prennent connaissance du présent rapport.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

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.

 

DISCUSSION

 

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.

 


Imported Waste

 

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.

 


Disposal Sites

 

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.

 

Cost Recovery

 

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.

 

Monitoring Program

 

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.

 


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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.

 

CONSULTATION

 

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.

  

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1:            Comparison of Hauled Liquid Waste Disposal Fees Across Canada 


DOCUMENT 1

 

 

Comparison of Hauled Liquid Waste Disposal Fees Across Canada

 

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