Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment
Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
9 November 2004 / le 9 novembre 2004
Submitted by/Soumis par : R.T. Leclair, Deputy City Manager/Directrice
municipale adjointe
Public Works and Services/Services et Travaux publics
Contact Person/Personne
ressource : Richard Hewitt, Director Infrastructure Services
Infrastructure Services/Services d'infrastructure
(613) 580-2424 x21268, richard.hewitt@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council give staff direction
to proceed to finalize the Environmental Study Report identifying Pipeline as
the preferred method of managing leachate and contaminated groundwater
generated by the Trail Road Landfill and Nepean Landfill, respectively, and
Route 6 as the preferred pipeline route.
The pipeline alternative is proposed to convey leachate and contaminated
groundwater in a buried forcemain eastward along Cambrian Road to Jockvale Road
and north on Jockvale Road to a tie-in at the South Nepean Collector Phase I,
which will be completed in Summer 2005.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement recommande au Conseil municipal de donner des directives au
personnel afin qu'il parachève le Rapport d'étude environnementale établissant
le transport par canalisation comme méthode privilégiée pour la gestion du
lixiviat et des eaux souterraines générés par la décharge du chemin Trail et le
site d'enfouissement de Nepean, respectivement, et le tracé 6 comme tracé
privilégié pour la canalisation. La canalisation comme autre option possible
est proposée pour le transport du lixiviat et des eaux souterraines par égout
sous pression souterrain vers l'est le long du chemin Cambrian jusqu'au chemin
Jockvale et au nord du chemin Jockvale jusqu'à un raccordement à la Phase I du
collecteur de Nepean Sud, qui sera achevé à l'été de 2005.
BACKGROUND
In July 2002, following three years of study, route
selection, technology selection and environmental assessment, staff received
Ministry of the Environment confirmation that bump-up requests pertaining to
this project were denied. As a result,
staff proceeded with the final design of a pipeline to carry leachate generated
from the active Trail Road Landfill and contaminated groundwater from the
closed Nepean Landfill easterly along Cambrian Road to Jockvale Road and
subsequently to a pumping station servicing the Stonebridge community. In late January 2003, developers of the
Stonebridge community (Monarch Construction) expressed concern regarding
construction of the pipeline and its routing from the Jockvale Road/Cambrian
Road intersection through Golflinks Drive to the Stonebridge pumping
station.
On 21 March 2003, the Ministry of the Environment issued an Order to
the City which stated in part that “The Nepean Landfill groundwater collection
system and associated leachate pipeline shall be installed and in operation by
31 December 2004”. The deadline for
this order has subsequently been extended to 30 April 2005.
On 26 March 2003, Council endorsed a recommendation from Environmental Services Committee that directed staff to explore the construction of a pipeline to the Stonebridge pumping station to carry only contaminated groundwater from the former Nepean Landfill to the existing gravity sewer located along Golflinks Drive, and explore the implementation of an ultimate solution that would have the contaminated groundwater and leachate conveyed by pipeline north on Jockvale Road to the future South Nepean Collector Phase I, which is scheduled to be completed in Summer 2005. Both of the above recommendations were conditional upon the developer of the Stonebridge community agreeing to assume all additional costs due to additional design work, additional environmental assessment work and additional construction costs. The developer, Monarch Construction, had on 25 March 2003 provided a modified proposal for staff consideration involving routing of the pipeline north on Jockvale Road to the future South Nepean Collector Phase I. Subsequent discussion and communication by staff with Monarch Construction in April and May 2003 failed to resolve Monarch Construction’s disagreement with the City’s environmental and legal positions regarding its right to utilize the Stonebridge pumping station. This disagreement, notwithstanding Monarch Construction’s willingness to contribute an upset amount of $50,000 towards the cost differential to proceed with its modified proposal as expressed in its letter to the City dated 20 May 2003, continued to be unresolved.
On 24 June 2003, a staff report to Environmental Services Committee was considered which sought direction from Environmental Services Committee and Council with respect to two options: “Option 1: Proceed with tendering and installation of the Trail Road Leachate Pipeline along the corridor approved in 2002 by the Ministry of the Environment” and “Option 2: Re-open the Environmental Assessment process and re-evaluate the leachate pipeline routing options between the intersection of Jockvale and Cambrian Roads, and a suitable downstream connection to the wastewater collection system”. Upon consideration of the above options, Environmental Services Committee approved the following recommendation, later approved by Council on 23 July 2003: “That the Environmental Services Committee and Council give staff direction to re-open the Environmental Assessment process for the Trail Road Leachate Management Plan and the treatment of contaminated groundwater from the former Nepean Landfill Site”. The recommendation approved by Council is significant in that its terminology contemplates the re-opening of the leachate and contaminated groundwater management Environmental Assessment process in its entirety (i.e. re-assessment of all potential leachate and contaminated groundwater management alternatives).
Subsequently, staff solicited requests for Expressions of Interest from qualified consulting firms and Requests for Proposals from a shortlist of three firms to undertake the above assignment, that being expressed in the Request for Proposal as “This assignment is to re-open the Class Environmental Assessment for the management of leachate at the Trail Road Landfill site and for contaminated groundwater migrating from the Nepean Landfill site”. Based on a review of written submissions and consultant interviews,Conestoga-Rovers&Associates (CRA) was retained to complete this assignment.
The nature of the assignment undertaken by CRA was to conduct a completely new and independent Class Environmental Assessment to re-evaluate all potential leachate and contaminated groundwater management alternatives and identify a preferred alternative. This requires the filing of a new and independent Class Environmental Assessment. Renewed public and agency consultation was required as part of this assignment and new conceptual leachate and contaminated groundwater management alternatives were required to be identified and evaluated. CRA and City staff (Project Team) commenced work on this assignment in November 2003.
DISCUSSION
The intent of this report is to update Committee and Council and to provide an opportunity for Council to provide input prior to finalization and filing of the Environmental Study Report (ESR).
Since the ESR has not been finalized, there is currently no completed document to provide. This will be undertaken immediately following Council consideration of this report.
ANALYSIS
The problem definition for this assignment as required under the
Class Environmental Assessment process was to develop a long term management
strategy for Trail Road Landfill leachate and Nepean Landfill contaminated
groundwater.
Initially, the problem as defined included the management of leachate generated by the Trail Road Landfill and the groundwater beneath the closed Nepean Landfill. The contaminated groundwater flow was to be intercepted by a buried collector pipe that would subsequently discharge to an on-site treatment facility or to a pipeline for off-site treatment. This approach was considered to be adequate to address the continuing discharge of contaminated groundwater from beneath the Nepean Landfill.
In late May 2004, as this current Class Environmental Assessment was
approaching its conclusion, new information came to light as a result of the
City’s ongoing groundwater quality monitoring program at the Nepean
Landfill. The need to intercept the
contaminated groundwater, however, was greatly diminishing due to reduction of
contaminant levels within the groundwater.
Concurrently, recent groundwater monitoring results indicated that
exceedances of certain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) had been detected in
monitoring wells located on private property outside (downgradient) of the
approved Nepean Landfill boundary. This
new information instigated a reassessment of the contaminated groundwater
situation at the Nepean Landfill, which subsequently identified the need to
address the presence of elevated VOC levels. Notwithstanding the change in
focus on the nature and scope of groundwater containment and treatment, the
generic problem definition for this Class Environmental Assessment did not
change.
Based on direction received by the City from the Ministry of the
Environment on July 16, 2004, management approaches to the newly defined
outlying VOC contaminated groundwater plume were to be addressed under the
current Class Environmental Assessment process.
LONG-TERM LEACHATE AND CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES
A total of twelve leachate and contaminated groundwater management
alternatives were identified. Each of
the twelve management alternatives involved discharge of treated leachate or
contaminated groundwater to either the Ottawa River or the Jock River,
depending on method of conveyance. From
the twelve original alternatives, a total of eight alternatives were short listed
for detailed evaluation. The eight
alternatives included the following:
· Alternative 1 – Do
Nothing (Status Quo) – Maintain current practice of truck hauling Trail Road
Landfill leachate to the ROPEC with discharge to the Ottawa River. Nepean Landfill contaminated groundwater
remains untreated.
· Alternative 4 –
Leachate treated on-site with discharge to the Jock River. Contaminated groundwater treated on-site
with discharge to groundwater.
· Alternative 5 –
Leachate and contaminated groundwater trucked to the ROPEC with discharge to
the Ottawa River.
· Alternative 5A –
Leachate and contaminated groundwater trucked to a west end collector sewer
that drains to the ROPEC with discharge to the Ottawa River.
· Alternative 6 –
Leachate and contaminated groundwater piped to the ROPEC with discharge to the
Ottawa River.
· Alternative 8 –
Leachate trucked to the ROPEC with discharge to the Ottawa River. Contaminated groundwater treated on-site
with discharge to groundwater.
· Alternative 8A –
Leachate trucked to a west end collector sewer that drains to the ROPEC with discharge to the Ottawa River. Contaminated groundwater treated on-site
with discharge to groundwater.
· Alternative 10 –
Leachate piped to the ROPEC with discharge to the Ottawa River. Contaminated groundwater treated on-site
with discharge to groundwater.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODS
In order to assess the relative environmental impacts of each of the
identified leachate and contaminated groundwater management alternatives,
well-established and accepted environmental assessment evaluation methods were
employed. A Comment Sheet was first
established which provided the public and the Public Liaison Committee (PLC)
with a recommended list of comparative evaluation primary criteria and
subcriteria. With the input of the
public and the PLC, the following alternatives evaluation primary criteria and
subcriteria were identified:
Natural Environment
· Terrestrial
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
· Impact to
Groundwater Resources
· Surface Water
Resources
· Air Quality
Land Use Environment
· Agricultural Land
Impact
· Recreation
· Residential,
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
Social Environment
· Visual Aesthetics
· Public Health
(Drinking Water and Trucking Accidents)
· Noise
and Vibration
· Nuisance
Odour
Facility Capital and 60-Year Operating Costs
System Performance
· Ability to Meet
Changing Wastestream Quantity and Quality Characteristics
· Proven Technology
· Energy Conservation
The relative importance of each of these criteria was measured by
assigning weights to each primary criterion and subcriteria through a scoring
system that measured the public’s, the PLC’s and the Project Team’s preferences
for certain environmental attributes.
The combined average of the three group responses was used as the
evaluation weights.
EVALUATION RESULTS
Based on the evaluation procedures used by the Project Team, the
first and second place alternatives were :
First Place Alternative
Alternative 6 (Pipeline): Leachate and contaminated groundwater
piped to the City collection system, which drains to ROPEC for treatment and
discharge to the Ottawa River.
Capital cost - $3,800,000 (includes engineering, project management,
construction and owners costs).
Second Place Alternative
Alternative 4 (On-Site Treatment): Consisting of two facilities
(i.e. leachate treatment facility with surface water discharge to the Jock
River and an on-site contaminated groundwater extraction and treatment facility
with discharge to groundwater).
Capital cost - $8,200,000
(includes engineering, project management, construction and owner costs)
PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
|
ITEM |
PIPELINE (ALT 6) |
ON-SITE (ALT 4) |
|
LABOUR |
$
31,200 |
$124,800 |
|
MAINTENANCE & REPLACEMENT |
$
76,500 |
$214,000 |
|
CHEMICALS |
$
15,000 |
$100,000 |
|
SITE MAINTENANCE |
$
5,000 |
$
15,000 |
|
HYDRO |
$
4,700 |
$112,200 |
|
LAB ANALYSIS |
$
15,000 |
$
30,000 |
|
TREATMENT/SURCHARGE FEE |
$442,600(1) |
|
|
HAULAGE |
|
$
8,000(2) |
|
TOTAL |
$590,000 |
$604,000 |
(1) The surcharge fee is levied in accordance
with the Sewer By-Law. It is a fee
levied to recover costs of treatment for discharge to the City's sewer system
of constituents which are in excess of the limits identified in the By-Law. In this instance it is expected that the
limit for Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) will be exceeded.
(2) Haulage fees are anticipated to address the
disposition of process solids that will result as a by-product of
treatment. The material would be hauled
to the Trail Road Landfill.
PIPELINE ROUTE EVALUATION
For Alternative 6 (Pipeline), eight potential pipeline routes were
examined, including routes previously evaluated under earlier Environmental
Assessments. Several new potential
routes were also identified based on new existing or future connection opportunities
to the City’s wastewater collection system.
These routes are identified on Figure 1 (attached). Each of the routes identified were within
public/road rights-of-way.
Based on various evaluation criteria including cost (i.e. length of
pipeline, etc.), degree of temporary construction disruption, proximity and
number of residential/farm properties along the potential pipeline routes,
temporal opportunity for connection to the City’s wastewater collection system
and system hydraulic capacity, route 6 was identified as the preferred
route.
Route 6 would involve proceeding east from the Trail Road and Nepean
Landfills along Cambrian Road to Jockvale Road, north on Jockvale Road to just
south of the Jock River and a tie-in to the South Nepean Collector Phase I due
to be completed in Summer 2005.
CONCLUSION
It is important to note that the first and second place alternatives (Pipeline and On-Site Treatment) scored very close to each other. However, using the evaluation methods developed for this assignment, Pipeline scored higher than On-Site in the final analysis (9.34 out of 10 versus 8.99 out of 10). Compared with On-Site, Pipeline scored better in terms of:
· Capital cost;
· Energy use;
· Ease of operation;
· Operating experience; and
· Sensitivity to changes in leachate and contaminated groundwater chemistry.
On-Site, by comparison, scored better than Pipeline in terms of:
· Export of water out of the watershed;
· Effluent quality; and
· Construction disruption.
A summary of the alternative costs is provided on Table 1 (attached).
It is further noted, notwithstanding the quantitative result of this evaluation, that on-site treatment was preferred over other competing alternatives by the local communities of Barrhaven and Stonebridge.
It should be noted that if Committee and Council select the On-site Treatment Alternative additional public notification will be required in order to comply with the Environmental Assessment process.
Staff supports the results of this Class Environmental Assessment, which identifies Pipeline as the preferred long-term management approach to addressing Trail Road Landfill leachate and Nepean Landfill contaminated groundwater, and Route 6 as the preferred pipeline route.
CONSULTATION
Throughout this project, specific attention was given
to addressing input and obtaining comments from the public and government
agencies. A Public Liaison Committee
(PLC) consisting of twelve members, including the Ward Councillor, was
established with the following objectives:
· Communicate and
transfer information between the public and the Project Team;
· Assist the Project
Team in ensuring public awareness and input is achieved; and
· Assist in
development of alternative evaluation criteria.
Public and government agency consultation included the following
events:
· Eight PLC meetings;
· Three public
meetings; and
· Reponses to
numerous telephone/email inquiries.
Specifically, the public and government agency consultation process
involved the following activities in chronological order:
1. Initial Project
notification – Announcement of Public Open House No.1
2. Public Open House
No. 1 (February 19, 2004) – Problem definition and solicitation for PLC
membership;
3. PLC Applications
received, reviewed and members selected;
4. PLC Meeting No. 1a
(March 17, 2004) – Discussed Class Environmental Assessment process, project
objectives, overview of potential conceptual leachate and contaminated
groundwater management alternatives and distribution of draft Comment Sheet;
5. PLC Meeting No. 1b
(March 31, 2004) – Discussed alternative treatment concepts, evaluation
criteria and revised Comment Sheet;
6. Public Open
House/Meeting No. 2 (April 14, 2004) – Formal presentation of conceptual
management alternatives and distribution of Comment Sheet;
7. PLC Meeting No. 2a
(April 28, 2004) – Qualitative review of preliminary Comment Sheet responses;
8. PLC Meeting No. 2b
(May 5, 2004) – Presentation of short list of management alternatives,
quantitative review of Comment Sheet responses and discussion on approach to
alternatives risk evaluation;
9. PLC Meeting No. 2c
(May 19, 2004) – Utilization of Comment Sheet responses, incorporation of
utility value assignments and application of the evaluation matrices;
10. PLC Meeting No. 3a
(June 1, 2004) – Announcement of change in nature and scope of groundwater
containment and treatment at the Nepean Landfill;
11. PLC Meeting No. 3b
(June 21, 2004) – Inform PLC of the City’s strategy to manage the newly defined
Nepean Landfill contaminated groundwater plume under a Certificate of Approval
amendment;
12. PLC Meeting No. 4
(October 20, 2004) – Present list of alternatives reviewed, discussion of
utility value assignments, preliminary identification of preferred alternatives
(Alternatives 4 and 6), comparison of preliminary preferred alternatives; and
13. Public Open
House/Meeting No. 3 (October 26, 2004) – Presentation of preferred alternative
(Alternative 6 – Pipeline) and responses to questions from attendees.
Government agencies contacted during this project included the
Ministry of the Environment (Ottawa District Office and Kingston Regional
Office), Ministry of Natural Resources (Kemptville District Office), Ministry
of Tourism and Recreation (Ottawa
District Office), Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Kingston Regional
Office), Ministry of Transportation (Kingston Regional Office),
Environment Canada, Rideau Valley
Conservation Authority, City of Ottawa (Director Real Property Asset
Management; Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals; Director of
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure; Director of Infrastructure Services;
Director of Utility Services; Medical Officer of Health; Program Manager Waste
Diversion and Processing.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Currently Capital Account #900339, Trail Road
Landfill Leachate, has $3.046M available for this project. Additional funding will be identified in the
appropriate capital budget.
The projected total cost for the Re-opening of the Trail Road Landfill
Leachate and Nepean Landfill Contaminated Groundwater Environmental Assessment
is $370,300.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Table 1 - Alternative Cost Summary
Figure 1 - Preferred Alternative - Pipeline Route 6
Figure 2 - Second Alternative - On-site Leachate and Groundwater
Treatment Facilities
DISPOSITION
Upon approval by Council, staff will proceed to file the Environmental Study Report and implement the recommendation(s).
