Township of Tiny Septage Management Public Information ... Documents/Septage Management...

Prepared By:

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 3 Ronell Crescent Collingwood ON L9Y 4J6

Prepared for:

Township of Tiny

June 2012

File No: MCB 019184 The material in this report reflects best judgement in light of the information available at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

Township of Tiny Septage Management Public Information Centre No. 3 Summary Report

Township of Tiny i Township of Tiny Septage Management Class EA Study Public Information Centre Summary Report June 2012

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited MMCB019184 019184_Tiny Septage PIC #3 Summary Report.doc

PROJECT: Township of Tiny Septage Management Class Environmental Assessment Study

PROPONENT: Township of Tiny ACTIVITY: Public Information Centre, Open House and Questions & Answer

format DATE & April 21, 2012 LOCATION: Township of Tiny Council Chambers 130 Balm Beach Road West, Perkinsfield, ON TIME: 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. PROJECT TEAM Henk Blom, Township of Tiny MEMBERS Dawn McConnell, Township of Tiny PRESENT: Anne Egan, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

Bob Mayberry, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Don McNalty, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Erica Anderson, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Dianne Damman, D.C. Damman and Associates

PROJECT Nigel Warren, Chair ADVISORY Jurgen Pape COMMITTEE Greg Athron MEMBERS Keith Robillard PRESENT: James Trimble George Lawrence, Deputy Mayor, Township of Tiny PURPOSE: The purpose of the PIC was to present and obtain public input on the following: Review the alternative solutions Present the evaluation of alternative solutions Present the preferred alternative Gather and respond to public input and feedback Identify next steps in the process PROCEEDINGS: This report provides a summary account of Public Information Centre No. 3 (PIC) held for the Township of Tiny Septage Management Class EA Study.

Township of Tiny ii Township of Tiny Septage Management Class EA Study Public Information Centre Summary Report June 2012


Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction and Background ............................................................................ 1

2.0 Method of Notification......................................................................................... 1

3.0 Public Meeting Format ........................................................................................ 2

4.0 Summary of Questions and Comments Received ........................................... 3 4.1 PIC Q & A Session ................................................................................................ 3 4.2 Other Issues and Comments ................................................................................. 9

5.0 Next Steps .......................................................................................................... 23 Tables Table 4.1 Summary of the Q & A Response .............................................................. 3 Table 4.2 PIC Comments (as Submitted on Comment Forms) and Study

Team Responses..................................................................................... 10 Appendices A Newspaper Advertisement B Display Boards and Presentation Slides C Comment Sheets

Township of Tiny 1 Township of Tiny Septage Management Class EA Study Public Information Centre Summary Report June 2012


1.0 Introduction and Background

The Township of Tiny (Township) has retained R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) to undertake a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study to establish the preferred approach for providing septage and holding tank waste disposal services for the residents of the Township. The Township has approximately 8,800 homes with private septic systems or holding tanks, with the potential for as many as 12,000 units. At present, the collection and disposal of septage and holding tank waste is by private haulers. The Township currently does not have a municipal sewage treatment facility to receive and treat septage and holding tank waste. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) prohibits land application of untreated septage on agricultural lands during winter months. MOE has indicated that a province-wide moratorium on land application of untreated sewage will eventually come into effect. Consequently, the Township is examining alternative solutions for the disposal of septage and holding tank waste. The study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000 as amended in 2011), which is approved under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. Three Public Information Centres (PICs) have been held during the course of this study. This report documents PIC No. 3, held on April 21, 2012 and summarizes the notification process, the information presented and the comments received during and after the PIC. The PIC included an “open house” format with presentation boards, followed by a presentation with a “question and answer” period.

2.0 Method of Notification

Details of the date, time, location and the purpose of the PIC were posted on the Township’s website on January 17, 2012 (a copy of the Notice is included in Appendix A). A copy of the Notice was also provided to all taxpayers in the Township as part of the Spring Newsletter, which was included with the Final Tax Bill mailout on February 8, 2012. The Notice was advertised in the Township’s Community page in the Midland Mirror on March 15, 2012 and advertised on LED sign boards within the Township beginning April 3, 2012, through to April 21, 2012. Notification of the PIC was also sent to regulatory agencies, local stakeholder groups, and any local residents who previously requested to be on the study contact list.



3.0 Public Meeting Format

Attendees were asked to sign the registration sheet and were provided with a comment form. A total of 28 people attended the PIC. Eight (8) Township staff and consulting team representatives and five (5) members of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) were also in attendance. The PIC was organized into two segments – an Open House, and a formal Presentation with Question and Answer (Q & A) session. The open house began at 10:00 A.M. Display boards presenting the Alternative Solutions and Preferred Alternative Solution were available for viewing. Project team members were available to answer questions and receive comments. A copy of the display boards are provided in Appendix B. The presentation and Q & A session began at 10:30 A.M. Introductory remarks were made by the PAC Chair and Township staff. The consulting team made a presentation, providing information on: Review of the Problem/Opportunity Statement; Key Steps in Phase 2 of the Municipal Class EA process and current status of this

Study; Background information regarding septage characteristics and quantities, and

current disposal practices in the Township of Tiny; Proposed Alternative Solutions; Criteria used to evaluate the Alternative Solutions; Proposed Preferred Alternative Solution Next steps in the process; and, Contact Information. A copy of the presentation slides are provided in Appendix B. Following the presentation, participants were given the opportunity to ask questions, and provide input and feedback on the study. Participants were also asked to provide input to the process by completing the available comment forms. If individuals wished to take their comment forms home to fill out later, they were requested to return their comments at the address provided on the comment sheet by May 21, 2012.



4.0 Summary of Questions and Comments Received

This section provides an overview of the feedback received from participants at the PIC and through written comments following the PIC.

4.1 PIC Q & A Session

Questions and comments made by the public during the Q & A session related to the following areas of concern: Potential negative impacts to groundwater; Financial implications for tax payers; Potential for private or public funding or partnerships to offset costs to tax payers; Identification of other existing land application sites or Waste Water Treatment Plants

(WWTPs) which accepts hauled septage; and, Alternative treatment options. A summary of the Q & A comments and responses are provided in Table 4.1 below. Responses were provided by members of the Township staff, the consultant Study Team and members of the PAC present at the meeting. Table 4.1 Summary of the Q & A Response No. Comment/Question Response Provided 1 Is the project team working with the

Ministry of Environment (MOE) to identify potential sites?

A representative from MOE, Greg Athron, is currently on the Project Advisory Committee (PAC). Mr. Athron indicated that it would up to the Township to evaluate and select an appropriate treatment method and site so as to not create any adverse impacts on the environment. He also noted that many existing treatment facilities are actually located close to populated areas and are often not even noticed by the residents or visitors. Septage treatment methods would be considered during future phases of the Class EA process (Phase 3).



No. Comment/Question Response Provided 2 Did the cost estimates take into

account the replacement cost of a septic system, in addition to the ongoing maintenance cost of pump-out? When that is factored in, Alternative 2 becomes more comparable with the other alternatives.

The cost estimates did not include replacement septic system costs.

3 Are provincial/federal monies available to fund the Township?

There is no provincial/federal funding available that we are aware of at this time.

4 Can revenues be generated from by products to offset costs?

An allowance for generating revenues has been included in the cost estimates.

5 How will the Township will be accountable to the public, and how the public will be notified of decision made with respect to the project?

Under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) process residents and stakeholders have been circulated via tax bill inserts, stakeholder list distribution, newspaper ads, Township website and the Township LED sign. Should the Township proceed with Phase 3 of the MCEA process, it would identify the preferred design and notification will be similar to that of the current project.

6 Concerned about environmental impacts to residents in the surrounding area during selection of the preferred alternative.

Advised that environmental impacts will be identified and evaluated during Phase 3 of the MCEA process with respect to specific sites.

7 How many people at this meeting are tax payers?

Approximately 26 present.

8 Concerned about costs incurred to rate payers with respect to existing systems compared to those associated with a new solution?

Comment noted.

9 Why is a 400 page report (Water/Wastewater Visioning document) prepared by the County of Simcoe not being considered in this project?

Don McNalty (DM) indicated that the County’s draft Water and Wastewater Visioning study is currently under review by Burnside as it relates to the Township of Tiny. Also noted that there is a completely separate Waste Management Plan from the County that deals with solid waste and not septage.



No. Comment/Question Response Provided 10 Surprised about the projected

volumes of septage and holding tank wastes. Concerned that a worst-case scenario is being considered, and suggests that the two types of waste should be considered separately.

Comment noted. Splitting the septage and holding tank wastes could be further evaluated.

Is it possible to send the waste to another facility such as Chatsworth or Waypoint? Concerned that the Township will rush into something that could potentially impact groundwater or surface water.

The possibility of treating the waste at existing facilities is included (Alternative 3).

11 Are there examples of solutions in other areas that address a problem that is similar to the present issue in the Township of Tiny?

District of Muskoka - 9 Septage Lagoons;

Eganville (Eastern Ontario) – Geotubes at existing WWTP;

Chatsworth – Anaerobic Digestor; Algonquin Park and College D’Alfred

(University of Guelph Campus)– Reed Beds;

Brooklea Golf Course – Lagoon system present to the left of hole #1.

Anne Egan (AE) offered to have a list posted on the Township of Tiny’s website.

12 Concerns raised with respect to pharmaceuticals/chemicals and pathogens present in the processed wastes.

Currently technology to address pharmaceuticals/chemicals/pathogens is limited and expensive. Treatment of pharmaceuticals is still an emerging research field.

13 Concerns raised with respect to impacts on groundwater quality from lagoons, etc.

Any potential impacts to groundwater quality can be mitigated through the technology used to build the proposed treatment facility. A lagoon system is only one example of a technology that could be implemented, but other technologies will be considered and evaluated.



No. Comment/Question Response Provided 14 Costing and site selection will bring

out more members of the public. Why are the life cycle costs based on 20-years and not 50-years?

The cycle is based on the 20-year planning horizon as per the Township Official Plan. 20-year life cycle costs are common for similar projects.

15 Will the Township be creating a business plan to ensure the proposed system is financially sustainable?

A business plan will be developed to assist in assessing the viability of the various types of treatment during Phase 3 of the Class EA. The Township will need to determine how the costs will be recouped.

16 What thought has been given to the sustainability of land application?

The end product can be beneficial to land and acts as a fertilizer.

17 Would treatments remove pharmaceuticals/heavy metals/salts?

There are not many technologies available that are cost efficient to remove these constituents. Salt residues are considered negligible from waste, and there are salt restrictions for roads.

18 Because there are substantial quantities of septage coming into the township for disposal on land, is there a consideration to partner with some of these other areas? Would like to see the Township partner to offset costs.

Other municipalities may not be aware that septage from their jurisdiction is being spread in Tiny, as it is all done by private haulers. If Tiny continued to accept these wastes at a potential facility, a premium could be charged for waste generated outside of the Township. Partnership could be considered.

19 Would like to know if Alternative Solution 4 also included the treatment of solids?

Wastes would be split into solid/liquid streams. There are no municipal solid or organic recycling programs considered in the costing. These methods could be considered during Phase 3 when the design alternatives are being evaluated.

20 Requested clarification on the difference between biosolids and septage.

Septage is the material that is removed from septic tanks approximately every 3 to 5 years. Biosolids are regulated separately and have undergone some form of treatment or stabilization to reduce contaminants. There are different Classes of biosolid depending on the degree of treatment. The US EPA considers “Class A”



No. Comment/Question Response Provided Biosolids as non hazardous with non detectable levels of pathogens (e.g. compost or fertilizer pellets, etc.). A “Class B” biosolid would have some pathogens and metal content, but is suitable for application to land in accordance with MOE regulations. Ontario does not formally use the Class A and Class B distinctions but for the purposes of this study it was assumed that a treatment facility that includes “full” treatment would produce a product equivalent to a Class A biosolid.

21 Upset about septic re-inspection program and associated fees, as well as the excess septage being generated by the program. Resident is concerned about spreading sites becoming saturated due to large amounts of septage being spread because the Township wants to inspect the tanks and systems again.

Inspection program is recommended by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and is mandatory in certain areas. Nigel Warren (NW) indicated that residents should be proud that the Province has implemented Re-Inspection Program requirements modeled after the Township of Tiny’s program. Volumes spread on fields are limited through MOE permitting and approvals. The purpose of the current study is to find an alternative to the current practice of land application.

22 Costs and system sizing have been estimated based on 20 year projections and 12,000 units. Concerned about the shorter-term, impacts of lower flows, etc. Has the study team reviewed other septage management studies (County of Frontenac, Grey County) and will private funding be considered.

Any facility could be implemented in a modular fashion to allow for expansion as the need arises. The study team has reviewed numerous other septage management studies from various jurisdictions in Ontario, other Canadian provinces, and the United States. The Township would consider private funding.



No. Comment/Question Response Provided 23 How does this study match up with

the County of Simcoe’s Waste Management Plan? The Township should consider partnering with others, what the County is proposing to help deal with the issue in the next 2 to 5 years, if applicable.

The County of Simcoe’s Waste Management Study was specific to solid waste (i.e. garbage, recycling and organics) and does not address the issues of wastewater or septage management. The County addressed wastewater servicing in a separate study (County of Simcoe Water and Wastewater Visioning Strategy, Draft May 2011).

The Township needs to look at the bigger picture. What if the County decides to take over septage management? The Township should haul to existing plants for now and wait to see what happens at the County level.

Comment noted.

24 Would like to see the PAC committee continue for with identification of the preferred design under the future process.

The PAC was formed to facilitate the decision making process for Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA (MCEA) process. Phases 3, 4 and 5 will be completed under a separate process. Continuation of the current PAC will be considered by Council.

25 Is there an opportunity to have the project team make presentations to cottage associations within the Township?

The purpose of the PIC’s is to provide the general public, including members of the various cottage associations with an opportunity to come and provide comments/concerns or ask questions with regard to the proposed project. This is more efficient than holding numerous small meetings with various associations, which were not budgeted for.



4.2 Other Issues and Comments

A total of six (6) comments were received (Appendix C) from stakeholders during the comment period for PIC No. 3 and these have been summarized in Table 4.2. Key issues addressed within the written responses relate to: Partnership with other municipalities including neighbouring municipalities and the

County of Simcoe; Alternative septage treatment options; Provision of detailed information related to costing alternatives; and, Concerns with respect to potential ground/water contamination from lagoon

treatment systems.

Township of Tiny 10 Township of Tiny Septage Management Class EA Study Public Information Centre Summary Report May 2012


Table 4.2 PIC Comments (as Submitted on Comment Forms) and Study Team Responses ID Code Comment Response Provided

Comment Sheet Question 1: Please provide any comments you have on the alternative solutions presented at today’s meeting. Please note that a list of alternative solutions is provided in today’s presentation as well as on the Township of Tiny’s website at: http://www.township.tiny.on.ca/residents/CURRENTPRPJECTS/SeptageManagementStudy/index.htm. A Private hauling costs should be reduced if they

do not have to buy land for disposal. Why not consider private funding to build a full plant to treat liquids and solids as was done by Grey County. Bids can be prepared quickly. Many advantages have been identified in the Grey County Phase 2/3 study.

The private haulers are responsible for setting their own rates.

B One efficient economical state of the art facility should be built in Simcoe County (Alternative 2) Partner with Barrie, Orillia, Collingwood, Waypoint, York Region, Durham Region, Grey, Dufferin.

Comment noted.

C The only alternative presented that would be useful for years to come, or permanent, is a sewage treatment plant. This is the most costly, but why spend tax dollars now for a relatively short term solution?

Comment noted.



ID Code Comment Response Provided D Has Penetang been approached to determine

whether or not a joint venture to expand their existing facility is feasible and more economic than the proposed solution? Comment on what you have done please.

The Township of Tiny would be open to partnering with another municipality. The Town of Penetanguishene has been approached. Penetanguishene has two existing wastewater treatment facilities, neither of which has septage receiving facilities. The Town is currently implementing an upgrade to the Main Street wastewater treatment plant, although the addition of septage receiving facilities is not included as part of the upgrades. The treated effluent from the two Penetang plants is discharged into Penetang Bay, which is more or less at the limit of its assimilative capacity (i.e. it cannot accept any additional treated effluent). In addition, the plans for the Main Street WWTP upgrade in Penetang were in place long before the Township of Tiny began this Class EA process and therefore, have advanced to a point where it is not practical or feasible on the Town’s part to try to alter the plan to accept septage from Tiny. Therefore, sending the septage to Penetanguishene has been evaluated and it has been concluded that this is not a viable solution to the problem.

E Option 1 (Do Nothing) is not practical as Ontario Government policy will restrict the Township from disposing of untreated septage on land in the future. Option 2 (sewer line and pumping stations) is feasible but not cost effective or environmentally

Comments noted.



ID Code Comment Response Provided friendly if sewer lines traversed the Georgian Bay shoreline. Other inland shoreline communities, towns, and hamlets would continue to rely on pump-out services. Option 3 (contract for disposal at regional WWTPs) does not appear to be feasible due to the lack of capacity at existing WWTPs. Option 5 (partial treatment works) limits residential services and long-term treatment requirements.

F Has consideration been given to Alternative 4 including the possibility of constructing a treatment facility designed and located in a high-density area and suitable for eventual (20 + years) connection to sewer mains. Septage from the rest of the Township could be hauled to this facility.

The alternatives identified have considered a septage treatment facility (Alternatives 4 and 5) separately from a municipal sewer collection system and wastewater treatment facility along the more densely populated Georgian Bay shoreline area (Alternative 2). Due to the significant difference in the volumes that would need to be processed under each of these alternatives (approximately 300 m3/day of septage vs. 6,050 m3/day of wastewater), as well as some differences in the treatment equipment and processes, it is would not be feasible or practical to try to expand a septage treatment facility for connection to a wastewater collection system.



ID Code Comment Response Provided Comment Sheet Question 2: Do you have any comments or concerns regarding the proposed recommended alternative? A Concerned with the costs identified per

alternative, and that the cost will be borne by the 8,000 plus residents as the 12,000 in the Township may not be for 5 to 10 years. What about designing a plant for Tay and other parts close by in Simcoe County?

It is considered practical to include some growth potential in the Township when evaluating the alternative solutions. It may be possible to include costs associated with a treatment facility in development charges, if Township Council decides to proceed with the implementation of a facility within the Township. We note that this would not capture existing seasonal residents that are converted to permanent residents, but it would capture new development. The Township of Tiny is open to partnering with other municipalities. All municipalities within Simcoe County are on the contact list for this Class EA and have been circulated on all notices related to the study.

B Cost is high. Concerned about dangerous residues left over with Alternatives 3a, 3b, 4 and 5 including pathogens, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and metals. Feels that research with respect to lagoons has been insufficient as residues (eg. solids or liquids) will need to be disposed of.

Comment noted. Any of the alternatives or example treatment processes will produce a residual solid material that requires disposal. The treatment process would be selected to minimize potential effects of these contaminants. The treatment of pharmaceuticals is still a relatively new and emerging research area. Comment noted. Lagoons are only one example of a type of system that could potentially be implemented. Other technologies would also be evaluated. All treatment processes will produce a residual solid for disposal.



ID Code Comment Response Provided Tiny’s waste management plan must fit with the County of Simcoe Waste Management Plan - can't work in a silo.

The County of Simcoe’s Waste Management Study was specific to solid waste (i.e. garbage, recycling and organics) and does not address the issues of wastewater or septage management. The County addressed wastewater servicing in a separate study (County of Simcoe Water and Wastewater Visioning Strategy, Draft May 2011). The Township is reviewing this document as it relates to this study and the Township as a whole.

C Concerns expressed related to lagoon systems especially when there is a risk of contamination and the end result enters the ground/aquifers. There are public concerns related to siting a lagoon near certain properties that will create public outcry.

Comment noted. Information regarding lagoons and several other technologies was provided to illustrate some examples of the types of systems available. No decisions have been made with respect to a particular treatment technology. Selection of a specific type of treatment technology, if the preferred Alternative Solution is to construct a facility, would not occur until Phase 3 of the Class EA process, which is not part of the scope of the current study. Potential impacts to groundwater quality can be mitigated through the technology used to build the proposed treatment facility.

D Best option among those presented. Comment noted. E The preferred option (construct full treatment

works) appears to be the most logical and technically viable solution. However, there are a number of questions involving the preferred option that need to be addressed.



ID Code Comment Response Provided a) Has the Township investigated other communities in Ontario (e.g. Westport) of similar size and geographic characteristics that have implemented septage treatment systems to discover the pros and cons of their systems (e.g. Envapocrystallization)? b) Has the Township considered an alternative to a lagoon system such as MBBR (moving bed bioreactor) treatment technology? c) If a reed bed system is being considered as a method for treating solids and liquids, what will happen to the sludge bearing heavy metals and toxins when the reed beds are cleaned out every five to seven years? d) If a lagoon type treatment system is chosen, it is unlikely that the facility would be fully staffed. What mechanisms would be implemented to provide suitable security to exclude unwanted use of the facility and what manifest system would be implemented to allow trusted or pre-qualified haulers to use the site? e) Given that government funding will be limited to support the development of a treatment facility, will the Township enter into partnership with

The study has reviewed a number of technologies being implemented in various municipalities throughout Ontario. Further study and analysis of technology options would be considered under Phase 3 of the Class EA process, when alternative design concepts are evaluated. See response to a) above. All processes will produce some type of residual solid material that will require disposal. Solids removed from a reed bed system would be similar to a class B biosolid and could be land applied or landfilled. As noted above, selection of a specific technology is not part of the current study. Any treatment facility would be secured using fencing and locked access. It would be possible to implement a cardlock system which would allow authorized haulers to enter the site and record quantity information etc. As noted above, the selection of a specific technology is not part of the current study. The Township would consider a Public Private Partnership.



ID Code Comment Response Provided private companies to build and operate a septage treatment facility? f) Will the Township develop a business plan to ensure there is a cost recovery of the treatment facility construction cost and ongoing operating costs through: a) haulage tipping fees, and b) a resident surtax?

Yes, a business plan would be prepared.

F Should we perhaps think longer term? The western shore is currently high density. Perhaps it should be zoned as a hamlet, and appropriate infrastructure planning including water and sewer could be included as part of this study.

Alternative 2 considers the construction of a sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant to service the western shore of the Township.

Comment Sheet Question 3: Do you have any comments on the purpose of the Study or the process that is being followed? A No comment or question Noted. B Concerned that Tiny council can discontinue the

current process and not continue. They have already spent a great deal of money.

MOE has indicated that a province-wide moratorium on land application of untreated sewage will eventually come into effect. Consequently, the Township is examining alternative solutions for the disposal of septage and holding tank waste.

C Purpose must be solely to find the best solution for the Township, not the cheapest or most politically popular. This process needs time to find the best solution for the long term.

Comment noted.



ID Code Comment Response Provided There are other alternatives that were not mentioned.

D None – Very well done. Comment noted. E Phases 1 and 2 follow the strategy outlined in

October 16, 2009 C.C. Tatham & Associates correspondence to Henk Blom. The initial phases of the Class EA process are also similar to other jurisdictions (i.e. Renfrew, North Frontenac, Hasting Highlands, Bonnechere Valley, Gatineau, Grey County, etc.) that have implemented septage management solutions. It was implied at the Public Information Centre # 3 meeting on April 21, 2012 that the project advisory team would be disbanded after May 31 and that there were no plans to involve the public in phases 3 – 4. For transparency and objectivity it is imperative that a project advisory team be utilized until the end of Phase 3. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience in the Township that could enhance the project advisory team. For example, the representative from the Clearwater Beach Association has an engineering background. One of the representatives from the Farlain Lake community is a retired fluid transfer consultant who has been involved in the design and development of WWTPs.

Comment noted. Public input is welcome at any time throughout the Class EA process. In no way will the opportunities for public input end with the completion of Phases 1 and 2 of the process. Should the Township proceed with Phases 3 through 5 of the Class EA process there would be additional public meetings, similar to those held during Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. There are certain minimum requirements as part of the Class EA process for points of contact with the public. There are a minimum of 2 mandatory point of contact for Phases 1 and 2 of the process (4 have been provided to date with one more (Notice of Completion) to be posted advising of the final 30 day comment period as part of this study. The 3 PICs held for this project were not mandatory, however the Township wanted to provide the public with ample opportunity to provide input and comment on the study). Phases 3 and 4 of



ID Code Comment Response Provided It is also recommended that public information centre meetings continue to be conducted up to the point of time that the final environmental study report is submitted to Council in 2013 for approval.

the Class EA include 1 mandatory point of contact in each phase, The Township has exceeded the minimum requirements, and will continue to meet or exceed the minimum requirements throughout the remainder of the Phases of the EA process as the future studies progress. In addition to the public information centres, it is our understanding that the Township is planning to continue with a Project Advisory Committee for future phases, although the exact details of the committee and its make up would need to be confirmed by Council.

F The process is commendable as far as it goes. However, there is a feeling that it is proceeding as a means to justify a pre-conceived solution rather than fully evaluate all possible technically feasible, environmentally friendly and cost effective options. Detailed reports by the consultants rather than power point presentations should be made available to taxpayers.

Comment noted. All information related to the study is available to the public on the Township’s website at http://www.township.tiny.on.ca/residents/ CURRENTPRPJECTS/SeptageManagementStudy/index.htm.The Project File Report will be available for Public Review and comment.

Comment Sheet Question 4: Other Comments/Concerns? A Identified that there are many other studies

available to obtain information from including the following: Reports from Frontenac County - Considers

septage based on a population of 12,600) Reports from Grey County – Considers

septage based on a population of 80,000 Sudbury STP costs to Haulers – Haulers

Comments noted. The study team is aware of, and has reviewed most of the reports noted as well as numerous other reports from various jurisdictions.



ID Code Comment Response Provided deliver septage to STP’s

STP sludge handling operating experiences – from 5 receiving facilities across Canada

Sludge lagoon upgrades necessary near Halifax plus many more

Identified that the Grey County Report suggested in 2005 that viable alternate was a Privately Owned Sludge Treatment facility which was favoured. At the time there were no plants in Canada. Reasons for this preference included: Appeared to be the lowest Capital Cost; Biosolids converted into fertilizer eliminate

land application; No cost for biosolids disposal; Less apparent social and environmental

impacts; Reduced odour and low impact on water

quality. Private treatment should be considered as an alternative.



ID Code Comment Response Provided B Comments provided with regard to the April 21,

12 meeting including: Well organized and well facilitated, fair, equal

chance to ask questions (MOE, Township, Haulers did not control);

More residents should have been present so they can make an informed decision and about a decision that will affect everyone.

Comments noted.

C If the solution is to build a treatment facility in Tiny, the construction contract should be tendered. Waypoint will be too small; however it could potentially be built to accommodate Tiny as well. Would like to see ‘energy from waste’ investigated. Resident does not agree with lagoon treatment. Would like to know if there are any ways to ensure wastes from other areas are not accepted in the Township if lagoons are built. Will all trucks from outside the Township be ‘blocked’?

Subsequent to the current study, there would be a requirement to fulfill the remaining phases of the Class EA process, which would typically be followed by detailed design, procurement of permits and approvals, and tendering of the construction contract. Township of Tiny staff have been involved in some discussions with respect to the Waypoint wastewater treatment facility, which is owned and operated by Infrastructure Ontario. There is currently no proposal to expand the existing treatment facility at Waypoint. Typically if Tiny continued to accept these wastes, a premium would be charged.

D No Comment provided Noted. E In addition to the evaluation criteria outlined in

the PIC# 3 meeting, it is recommended that the Surface water and groundwater quality and quantity are included under the Natural Environment Factors to be



ID Code Comment Response Provided following criteria be integrated into the evaluation: Natural Environment Factors In addition to water quality and quantity add a) surface water flow and groundwater Technical Factors Add: a) Demonstrated efficiency and reliability b) Energy efficiency c) Owner (i.e. Tiny Township) manageability (i.e. trained staff, etc.). The current proposed schedule for the remaining phases 3 – 5 indicate that the septage management solution will be implemented in 2014. Given that an RFP will need to be issued in order to contract a consulting firm to undertake phases 3 and 4, land will need to be acquired and environmentally assessed, additional public input will need to be included in the final EA process, and funding for the approved septage management solution will have to be acquired, it is more likely that the septage treatment facility would not be fully operational until 2015.

evaluated against each alternative solution identified. The Technical factors noted would typically be associated with the evaluation of design alternatives for a facility, which would be part of Phase 3 of the Class EA. Comment noted. Timeframes provided for future phases addressing design alternatives are only tentative at this time, and will be confirmed as future phases progress.

F We would strongly suggest that no further steps be taken on a "made in Tiny" solution until all North Simcoe options have been exhausted. A

Comment noted. Partnership with other municipalities is being evaluated.



ID Code Comment Response Provided regional solution would be much more cost effective and environmentally friendly. Septage is currently being trucked from Midland and Penetanguishene properties with septic systems, as is sludge from their treatment plants. Midland has capacity, albeit with some upgrade requirements. The additional revenue from Tiny might be a welcome relief to Midland taxpayers. We are not aware of any formal request having been submitted to or debated by Midland Council, nor of any public discussion among Midland taxpayers. Should this not proceed before Tiny commits to a solution which longer term proves wasteful and inadequate?



5.0 Next Steps

In the coming months, the preliminary preferred solution will be identified and further evaluated based on review and comments received from the public and agency at the end of the third PIC comment period. At the end of this study (i.e. at the end of Phase 2 of the Municipal Class EA Process), a Notice of Completion will be issued and a Project File Report (PFR) will be made available for public and agency review for a minimum of 30 days. Future work may include completion of Phases 3 (Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution), 4 (Environmental Study Report) and 5 (Implementation) under the Municipal Class EA process based on the preferred solution identified during this study.

Appendix A

Newspaper Advertisement

Township of Tiny Notice of Public Information Centre #3

Septage Management Class Environmental Assessment Study

The Study The Township of Tiny is undertaking a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study to establish the preferred approach for providing septage and holding tank waste disposal services for the residents of the Township. Sewage servicing to all existing and potential units is provided by private sewage systems (septic systems or holding tanks), with the potential for as many as 12,000 units. At present, the collection and disposal of septage and holding tank waste is by private haulers. The Township currently does not have a municipal sewage treatment facility that could receive and treat septage and holding tank waste. The Ministry of Environment (MOE) prohibits the land application of untreated septage on agricultural lands during winter months. The MOE has indicated that a province-wide moratorium on land application of untreated septage will eventually come into effect. Consequently, the Township is examining alternative solutions for the treatment and disposal of septage and holding tank wastes. The Process This study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (2000, as amended in 2007). A key component of the study is consultation with agencies, residents and interested stakeholders. There will be opportunities for public input and comment throughout the Class EA process, including three (3) Public Information Centres (PICs) during the course of the study. Members of the Public are invited to attend the third PIC, the purpose of which is to provide an opportunity to comment on the evaluation of alternative solutions and the preferred solution being considered to address the problem/opportunity statement.

Date: April 21, 2012

Time: 10:00 am – 10:30 am Open House

10:30 am – 12:00 noon Presentation and Discussion

Place: Township of Tiny Council Chambers 130 Balm Beach Road West, Perkinsfield, ON

Study information is also posted on the Township web site at: http://www.tiny.ca. If you cannot attend the PIC, but would like to provide comments, please provide your comments to one of the following contacts by May 21, 2012:

Mr. Henk Blom Manager of Public Works Township of Tiny 130 Balm Beach Road West Tiny, Ontario L0L 2J0 Tel: (705) 526-4204 Fax: (705) 527-8767 E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Anne Egan., M.Sc. (Eng.), P.Eng. Project Manager R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 3 Ronell Crescent Collingwood, Ontario, L9Y 4J6 Tel: (705) 446-0515, ext. 506 Fax: (705) 446-2399 E-mail: [email protected]

Information will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record. This Notice first issued in March 2012.

Appendix B

Display Boards and Presentation

Township of Tiny Septage Management Class Environmental Assessment

Municipal Class Environmental AssessmentMunicipal Class Environmental AssessmentPublic Information Centre #3Public Information Centre #3 April 21, 2012April 21, 2012

Septage Management Class EA Study Septage Management Class EA Study Township of TinyTownship of Tiny


WelcomePlease…..• Sign in• Ask us any questions you may have about the study• Complete a comment sheet and leave it with us – or take it home

and return it later (by May 21st, 2012) to one of the contacts provided

• Add your name to the Study Contact List if desired

Purpose of Today’s Information Centre:• Review the alternative solutions• Present the evaluation of alternative solutions • Present the preferred alternative• Gather and respond to public input and feedback• Identify next steps in the process


Study Purpose and Background• More than 8,800 existing private

sewage systems (septic systems or holding tanks) in the Township; potential for 12,000.

• Septage and holding tank waste is collected and disposed of by private haulers.

• No municipally owned treatment facility within the Township to accept the hauled sewage and septage.

• Ministry of Environment (MOE) prohibits land application of untreated septage on agricultural land during winter months.

• A province-wide prohibition on land application of untreated septage will eventually come into effect.

• The Township is undertaking this Study to establish the preferred approach for septage management.

• The Township is responding to this community-raised issue; taking a proactive approach to have a septage management plan established prior to the regulatory changes.


“Current practice for dealing with septage and holding tank wastes in the Township of Tiny is primarily land application. Sewage servicing to all existing and potential units is provided by private sewage systems, potentially as many as 12,000 units. There is currently no capacity within the Township to treat the resulting hauled sewage. Due to pending regulatory changes, as well as concerns raised about the current practice of land application, the Township is initiating the development of a Septage Management Plan to deal with these wastes in an environmentally and financially responsible manner.”

Problem/Opportunity Statement


Municipal Class EA Process• The Study is being undertaken in accordance with Phases 1 and 2 of the

Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Municipal Class EA document.• The Municipal Class EA process is an approved planning process for

municipal infrastructure projects (i.e. roads, water, and wastewater).

This Study

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5

Identify Problem or Opportunity

Identify Alternative Solutions

Alternative Design ConceptsforPreferredSolution

EnvironmentalStudy Report

Implementation

Opportunities for Ongoing Public Consultation and Input

Future Work

We are here


Key Steps• Identify alternative solutions to the problem• Environmental Inventory, identify and

evaluate impacts of alternative solutions• Project Advisory Committee Meeting #2• Public Information Centre #2• Select preferred solution• Project Advisory Committee Meeting #3• Project Advisory Committee Meeting #4• Public Information Centre #3• Refine preferred solution and confirm

project Schedule (i.e. A, B or C as per Municipal Class EA)

PHASE 2

Identify and Evaluate AlternativeSolutions

Where are we now?


Alternative 1 – Do Nothing• Continue with current practice – land application of most; disposal of a small

amount at Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) • Does not adequately address the problem statement• Benchmark for evaluation of other alternatives

Alternative 2 – Construct Sewage Collection and Treatment• Construct sanitary sewers, pumping stations and WWTP to service communities

along Georgian Bay (approximately 6,300 units serviced)• Provide septage receiving facilities at the WWTP for septage generated in the

remainder of the Township• WWTP capacity of approximately 6,050 m3/day• Treated effluent to be of acceptable quality for discharge to surface water.

Alternative Solutions


Alternative 3 – Contract for Disposal at Regional WWTPs• Contract to haul septage to existing treatment facilities in other municipalities• Would require an agreement between the Township of Tiny and one or more receiving municipalities• There is limited capacity locally; potentially adequate capacity available in larger WWTPs, but they are

farther away from the Township• 3(a) is based on the Township constructing and operating a central receiving and transfer station.• 3(b) is based on private haulers transporting directly to receiving facility in another municipality.

Alternative 4 – Construct Full Septage Treatment Works• Construct facility in the Township of Tiny to provide full treatment of solids and liquids• Includes full onsite treatment and processing of solid and liquid waste streams to a level appropriate for

disposal• Disposal could be on site or at another location

Alternative 5 – Construct Partial Septage Treatment Works• Construct facility in the Township of Tiny; provide partial treatment of solids and liquids• Requires disposal of a partially treated end product (could be at another site within the Township, or in

another municipality)• Example ways in which to implement this alternative:

– centralized dewatering facility only, no onsite treatment– dewater and treat only the liquids – dewater and treat only the solids

Alternative Solutions Cont’d


Alternative Solutions EvaluationCRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 – Do Nothing Alternative 2 – Construct a Municipal Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Facility to Service a Portion of the Township (including septage receiving facilities)

Alternative 3 – Contract to Haul Septage to Treatment Facilities in Other Municipalities

Alternative 4 – Construct a Septage Treatment Facility within the Township with Full Treatment of Solids and Liquids

Alternative 5 – Construct a Septage Treatment Facility within the Township with Partial Treatment of Solids and Liquids

Natural Environment Rating: Highest ImpactLeast Preferred

Low to Moderate ImpactPartially Preferred

Least ImpactMost Preferred

Low to Moderate ImpactPartially Preferred

Moderate Impact Partially Preferred

•Designated Sites/Species•Water Quality and Quantity•Floodplain Lands•Terrestrial Habitat•Aquatic Habitat

No impact over existing conditions in the short term, however land application of raw septage would continue in the long term with the potential for impacts to groundwater.

Potential impacts over existing conditions, depending on location of new facility.

Appropriate permits and approvals would be obtained, and appropriate measures implemented to mitigate impacts.

Potential for long term improvement as land application of raw septage would no longer continue.

Potential for improvement over existing conditions, as land application of raw septage would no longer continue.

Potential impacts on air quality through transport. The location of any required infrastructure or receiving facilities within the Township would be chosen to minimize impacts.

Potential impacts over existing conditions, depending on location of new facility.



Potential for greater impacts as compared to Alternative 4, although depends on the type of treatment selected and depending on location of new facility.



Socio-economic/ Cultural Environment Rating:

Moderate to High ImpactPartially Preferred


Most Preferred Most Preferred

•Compatibility with Township/ County Official Plan and Future Ministry Requirements with land application of untreated septage.•Heritage Resources (archaeological features, built heritage, and cultural heritage landscapes)•Nuisance Impacts•Land Requirements

Not compatible with future Ministry requirements.

Nuisance impacts associated with odour and truck traffic from spreading raw septage would continue.

Compatible with current Township/County OP and future Ministry requirements.

Location would be chosen to minimize potential impacts on heritage resources.

Land acquisition may be required.

Potential for short term nuisance impacts such as noise, dust, emissions, and odour during construction. Potential for long term, odour impacts. Appropriate odour mitigation measures would be implemented in accordance with MOE requirements.


No impact over existing conditions.

Potential for nuisance impacts such as noise, dust, emissions, and odour as a result of increased hauling distance.




Potential for short term nuisance impacts such as noise, dust, emissions, and odour during construction. Potential for long term, odour impacts. Appropriate odour mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with MOE requirements.




Potential for short term nuisance impacts such as noise, dust, emissions, and odour during construction. Potential for long term, odour impacts. Appropriate odour mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with MOE requirements.


Alternative Solutions Evaluation Cont’dCRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 – Do Nothing Alternative 2 – Construct a Municipal Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Facility to Service a Portion of the Township (including septage receiving facilities)

Alternative 3 – Contract to Haul Septage to Treatment Facilities in Other Municipalities

Alternative 4 – Construct a Septage Treatment Facility within the Township with Full Treatment of Solids and Liquids

Alternative 5 – Construct a Septage Treatment Facility within the Township with Partial Treatment of Solids and Liquids

Financial Factors Rating: Lowest CostMost Preferred

Highest Cost Least Preferred

Low to Moderate Cost Partially Preferred

Moderate Cost Partially Preferred

Moderate Cost Partially Preferred

•Estimated Capital Costs, including Restoration and Total Estimated Cost (20 year planning horizon)•Estimated Operation & Maintenance Costs (20 year planning horizon)•Estimated Cost to Township Residents

No additional expense to Township and residents. All costs assumed by the owner of the system.

O&M costs and hauling costs assumed by the owner of the system.

High capital costs associated with the construction of new wastewater treatment facility and collection system, to be borne by Township and residents.

O&M costs to operate, monitor and maintain treatment facility. Costs assumed by the Township; paid by user fees. Moderate cost to residents.

Low capital cost associated with planning policy revisions and securing agreements with receiving municipality, to be borne by Township and residents.

Potential upgrades to receiving facility; moderate cost to Township and residents.

Potentially high hauling and tipping costs assumed by residents which could fluctuate with transportation distance, fuel costs and other factors.

Moderate capital costs associated with the construction of a new septage treatment facility, to be borne by Township and residents.

O&M costs to operate, monitor and maintain treatment facility. Costs assumed by the Township, to be paid by user/ tipping fees.

Moderate cost to residents.

Moderate capital cost associated with the construction of a new septage treatment facility to be borne by Township and residents. Costs would be higher than for Alternative 4 (due to additional disposal costs for partially treated end products), but lower than Alternative 2.

O&M costs to monitor and maintain treatment facility. Costs assumed by the Township, to be paid by user/tipping fees.

Moderate cost to residents.

Technical Factors Rating: Highest ImpactLeast Preferred

Moderate ImpactPartially Preferred


Least Impact Most Preferred

Least Impact Most Preferred

•Capability to adequately address septage volumes from existing units�Capability to be adequately accommodated proposed population growth in the Township�Technical Practicability�Approval / Permits Required•Special engineering requirements

Does not address septage volumes from existing units or adequately accommodate proposed population growth in the Township

Technically feasible.

Permits required by haulers.

No special engineering requirements.

Fully addresses septage volumes from existing units and adequately accommodates proposed population growth in the Township


Permits and approvals required, as well as a Schedule C EA.

Special engineering requirements.

Addresses septage volumes from existing units and adequately accommodates proposed population growth in the Township, although the Township would be dependent and limited based on the receiving municipality and the terms of the agreement.


Potential requirement for permits/approvals, Class EA, upgrades at receiving facility; extent of required approvals and upgrades would depend on the receiving facility.

Fully addresses septage volumes from existing units and adequately accommodates proposed population growth in the Township


Yes, permits and approvals required, as well as a Schedule C EA and special engineering requirements.

Compatible with current Fully addresses septage volumes from existing units and adequately accommodates proposed population growth in the Township


Yes, permits and approvals required, as well as a Schedule C EA and special engineering requirements.

Addresses Problem Statement No Yes Yes Yes Yes

RECOMMENDED SOLUTION NOT PREFERRED NOT PREFERRED NOT PREFERRED PREFERRED NOT PREFERRED


Cost Estimates for Each Alternative

Alternative

Capital Cost Capital

Cost per Lot (3,4)

Annual O & M

Tipping Fee to

Township of Tiny per 1000 Igal

Pump-Out(2,10)

Tipping Fee to Receiving Municipality per 1000 Igal

Pump-Out(2,9,10)

Private Hauling Cost per

1000Igal

Pump-Out (1)

Total Costper

1000Igal

Pump-Out

Annual Sewer

Charge for Connected

Lots(4)

1 Do Nothing (5) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 180 $ 480 $ 660 $ -

2 Construct Sewers/WWTP $104,250,000 $ 8,700 $ 3,692,000 $ 140 $ - $ 150 $ 290 $ 480

3 Haul to Regional WWTPs

(a) Central Receiving and Hauling $ 3,215,000 $ 270 $ 2,203,000 $ 220 $ - $ 150 $ 370 $ -

(b) Private Hauling $ 1,560,000 $ 130 $ - $ - $ 180 $ 480 $ 660 $ -

4 Construct Full Septage Treatment (6,7)

Average Cost $ 6,217,000 $ 520 $ 489,000 $ 50 $ - $ 150 $ 200 $ -

5 Construct Partial Septage Treatment

Average Cost $ 4,630,000 $ 390 $ 522,000 $ 60 $ - $ 150 $ 210 $ -


Overview of Costs

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

3a 3b 4 5Alternative Solution

Capital CostAnnual O&M Cost20-Year Life Cycle Cost

Alternative3a Central Receiving Station3b Private Hauling4 Full Treatment Facility5 Partial Treatment Facility

(11)


Cost per Pump-out (1,000 gal)

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

2 2* 3a 3b 4 5

Alternative Solution

Tipping Fee to ReceivingMunicipality

Tipping Fee to Twp of Tiny

Private Hauling Cost

2* refers to lots with sewerconnections, based on $40/month

Tipping fee to Township of Tiny basedon the facility receiving 2031 projectedvolumes

All values are based on 2012 costs


1. Hauling fees based on 2012 costs.2. Tipping fees to Township of Tiny based on the facility receiving 2031 projected

volumes.3. Annual capital cost per lot based on 2031 volume projections from 12,000 units.4. For Alternative 2, annual sewer charge based on $40/month. Assumes 6,300 lots

connected to sewer system.5. The ‘Do Nothing’ alternative assumes the ban on land application has come into

effect.6. “Full” treatment of solids assumed to produce Class A biosolids that would be land

applied within Tiny.7. “Full” treatment of liquids assumes treatment and final disposal within Tiny.8. Assumes septage and holding tank waste will be hauled and processed

simultaneously.9. Tipping fee to receiving municipality assumed to be $30/m3 ($6.67/1,000 imperial

gallons) based on an average of current rates at receiving plants.10. Alternative 3a assumes the Township would pay the tipping fee to the receiving

municipality, while Alternative 3b assumes the homeowner would pay it via the private hauler.

11. 20-year life cycle cost assumes 6% interest and 3% inflation.

Assumptions Related to Cost Estimates


Recommended Alternative

• The technically preferred alternative solution is:Alternative 4 – Construct Full Septage Treatment Works.

• This alternative would involve the construction of a dedicated septage treatment and disposal facility within the Township of Tiny to fully treat both the solid and liquid portions of the septage. Treated liquid and solids would be disposed of within the Township.


• Examples of the types of treatment system that could be employed include:– Geotubes, with liquid treatment using a membrane

bioreactor and composting of solids.– Anaerobic Digestion of solids; liquid treatment using a

membrane bioreactor.– Lagoon system with additional liquid treatment and

composting of solids.– Reed Beds with liquid disposal to leaching beds and

composting of solids.

• These and other potential options will be furtherconsidered and evaluated during detailed design.

Recommended Alternative Cont’d


• Receive and evaluate public and agency comments from this PIC

• Refine preferred solution

• At the end of the Study, a Project File Report will be available for a 30-day public and agency review and comment period

• Phase 3 �evaluation of design alternatives and potential sites for the preferred solution (2012 – 2013).

• Phase 4 � file Environmental Study Report (2013)• Phase 5 � implementation of the preferred alternative,

obtain permits, construction (2013 – 2014)

Next Steps

FutureWork

ThisStudy


Your On-Going Involvement is Important to Us

• There is an opportunity at any time during the Class EA process for interested persons to provide comment. Our team welcomes any comments that you may have about this study, either at the Public Information Centre or through correspondence, so that your input can be incorporated into the study process.

• Comment sheets are available and should be submitted to the address provided by May 21st, 2012. This information is available online at www.tiny.ca/residents/currentprojects/SeptageManagementStudy.

• If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study, please contact:

Anne Egan, Project ManagerR. J. Burnside & Associates Limited3 Ronell CrescentCollingwood, ON L9Y 4J6Phone: (705) 446-0515E-mail: [email protected]

Henk Blom, Manager of Public WorksTownship of Tiny130 Balm Beach Road WestTiny, ON L0L 2J0Phone: (705) 526-4204E-mail: [email protected]

Appendix C

Comment Sheets

A

B

C

D

Fw: Township Septage Management EA Public Information Centre # 3 CommentsAnne Egan to: Bob Mayberry, Erica Anderson 05/08/2012 04:04 PM

History: This message has been replied to.

----- Forwarded by Anne Egan/RJB on 05/08/2012 04:04 PM -----

From: Peter Andrews <[email protected]>To: "'Anne Egan'" <[email protected]>Cc: <[email protected]>Date: 05/07/2012 07:42 AMSubject: Township Septage Management EA Public Information Centre # 3 Comments

Hi Anne,

Attached are my comments pertaining to the questions asked on the public information centre # 3 comment sheet.

In addition to my comments I have also posed a number of questions that I would like to see addressed. I am assuming that public feedback (written and verbal) from the three public information centre meetings will be summarized in the environmental Phase 1 -2 study report submitted by R.J. Burnside & Associates Ltd. to Township Council early in June. I am not sure if pertinent comments made during the public information centre meetings were captured by a recording secretary. There are, however, a number of key common messages by various participants recorded on the comment sheets for each public information centre meeting. It is my hope that the common feedback and the primary input of the project advisory team are duly recorded and reported to Township Council.

In my comments I have advocated the continuance of a project advisory team for Phase 3. I also strongly recommend, for transparency and continuity reasons, additional public information centre meetings leading up to the preparation of the final environmental study report.

Thank you for allowing the Farlain Lake Community Association to be part of the septage management decision making process.

PeteTownship EA Study Public Information # 3 Comments.docTownship EA Study Public Information # 3 Comments.doc

E

1

Township of Tiny Septage Management Class EA Assessment Study PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE # COMMENTS

Name: Peter Andrews Address: Home: 1216 Grandview Street N. Oshawa, ON L1K 2L2 Cottage: 154 Farlain Lake Road E. Telephone: Home: (905) 723-4846 Cottage: (705) 549-4412 E-mail: [email protected]: Farlain Lake Community Association

1. Please provide any comments you have on the alternative solutions presented at today’s meeting. Option 1 (status quo) is not practical as Ontario Government policy will restrict the Township from disposing of untreated septage on land in the future. Option 2 (sewer line and pumping stations) is feasible but not cost effective or environmentally friendly if sewer lines traversed the Georgian Bay shoreline. Other inland shoreline communities, towns, and hamlets would continue to rely on pump-out services. Option 3 (contract for disposal at regional WWTPs) does not appear to be feasible due to the lack of capacity at existing WWTPs. Option 5 (partial treatment works) limits residential services and long-term treatment requirements.

2. Do you have any comments or concerns regarding the proposed recommended alternative?

The preferred option (construct full treatment works) appears to be the most logical and technically viable solution.

However, there are a number of questions involving the preferred option that need to be addressed. a) Has the Township investigated other communities in Ontario (e.g. Westport) of similar size and geographic characteristics that have implemented septage treatment systems to discover the pros and cons of their systems (e.g. Envapocrystallization)? b) Has the Township considered an alternative to a lagoon system such as MBBR (moving bed bioreactor) treatment technology? c) If a reed bed system is being considered as a method for treating solids and liquids, what will happen to the sludge bearing heavy metals and toxins when the reed beds are cleaned out every five to seven years? d) If a lagoon type treatment system is chosen, it is unlikely that the facility would be fully staffed. What mechanisms would be implemented to provide suitable security to exclude unwanted use of the facility and what manifest system would be implemented to allow trusted or pre-qualified haulers to use the site?

2

Public Information Centre # 3 Comments

2. Do you have any comments or concerns regarding the proposed recommended alternative?

Questions (continued)

e) Given that government funding will be limited to support the development of a treatment facility, will the Township enter into partnership with private companies to build and operate a septage treatment facility? f) Will the Township develop a business plan to ensure there is a cost recovery of the treatment facility construction cost and ongoing operating costs through a) haulage tipping fees and b) a resident surtax?

3. Do you have any comments on the purpose of the Study or the process that is being followed?

Phases 1 and 2 follow the strategy outlined in October 16, 2009 C.C. Tatham & Associates correspondence to Henk Blom. The initial phases of the Class EA process are also similar to other jurisdictions (i.e. Renfrew, North Frontenac, Hasting Highlands, Bonnechere Valley, Gatineau, Grey County, etc.) that have implemented septage management solutions.

It was implied at the Public Information Centre # 3 meeting on April 21, 2012 that the project advisory team would be disbanded after May 31st and that there were no plans to involve the public in phases 3 – 4. For transparency and objectivity it is imperative that a project advisory team be utilized until the end of Phase 3. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience in the Township that could enhance the project advisory team. For example, the representative from the Clearwater Beach Association has an engineering background. One of the representatives from the Farlain Lake community is a retired fluid transfer consultant who has been involved in the design and development of WWTPs.

It is also recommended that public information centre meetings continue to be conducted up to the point of time that the final environmental study report is submitted to Council in 2013 for approval.

3

Public Information Centre # 3 Comments

4. Other comments/concerns?

In addition to the evaluation criteria outlined in the Public Information Centre # 3 meeting, it is recommended that the following criteria be integrated into the evaluation:

Natural Environment Factors In addition to water quality and quantity add a) surface water flow and groundwater

Technical Factors Add: a) Demonstrated efficiency and reliability b) Energy efficiency c) Owner (i.e. Tiny Township) manageability (i.e. trained staff, etc.).

The current proposed schedule for the remaining phases 3 – 5 indicate that the septage management solution will be implemented in 2014. Given that an RFP will need to be issued in order to contract a consulting firm to undertake phases 3 and 4, land will need to be acquired and environmentally assessed, additional public input will need to be included in the final EA process, and funding for the approved septage management solution will have to be acquired, it is more likely that the septage treatment facility would not be fully operational until 2015.

Re: Township Septage Management EA Public Information Centre # 3 Comments Anne Egan to: Peter Andrews 05/14/2012 02:29 PMCc: hblom, Erica Anderson

Mr. Andrews,

Thank you for your comments regarding PIC #3 for the Township of Tiny Septage Management Class EA.

We will be preparing a PIC Summary report which will document and provide responses to the comments and questions received from the PIC. This report will be made available on the Township website after the end of the commenting period (May 21). In addition, the Project File Report that gets completed at the end of this study will include a summary of all public consultation activities undertaken and comments received.

We did want to specifically address the concern you identified with respect to the study process and opportunities for public input during future phases of the Class EA process. We apologize if this did not come across more clearly at the meeting. Please understand that public input is welcome at any time throughout the Class EA process, and in no way will the opportunities for public input end with the completion of Phases 1 and 2 of the process. Should the Township proceed with Phases 3 through 5 of the Class EA, process there would be at least one additional public meeting, similar to those held during Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process.

There are certain minimum requirements as part of the Class EA process for points of contact with the public. There are a minimum of 2 mandatory point of contact for Phases 1 and 2 of the process (4 have been provided to date with one more (Notice of Completion) to be posted advising of the final 30 day comment period as part of this study. The 3 PIC's held for this project were not mandatory, however the Township wanted to provide the public with ample opportunity to provide input and comment on the study.). Phase 3 of the Class EA has 1 mandatory point of contact, and Phase 4 has 1 as well. The Township has exceeded the minimum requirements, and will continue to meet or exceed the minimum requirements throughout the remainder of the Phases of the EA process as the future studies progress. For your reference, I am attaching a chart of the overall Class EA process which explains the various phases and the minimum required points of contact.

In addition to the public information centres, it is our understanding that the Township is planning to continue with a Project Advisory Committee for future phases, although the exact details of the committee and its make up would need to be confirmed by Council.

I trust this addresses your concerns regarding public input in future phases of the Class EA.

Sincerely,

MCEA Flowchart.pdfMCEA Flowchart.pdf

Anne Egan, M.Sc.(Eng.), P.Eng. Leader, Onsite Wastewater Group

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 6990 Creditview Road, Unit 2 Mississauga, Ontario L5N 8R9 [email protected]

Fw: Tiny Township Septage Management EA StudyAnne Egan to: hblom 05/15/2012 08:12 AMCc: Erica Anderson

----- Forwarded by Anne Egan/RJB on 05/15/2012 08:11 AM -----

From: Peter Andrews <[email protected]>To: "'Anne Egan'" <[email protected]>Date: 05/14/2012 06:56 PMSubject: Tiny Township Septage Management EA Study

Hi Anne,

Thank you for the information on the ‘process’ involving the next steps.

I advocated the need for continued public consultation and the continuation of the project advisory committee for a number of reasons. It is my belief that more people will become involved in the septage management decision making process when information about site location, potential environmental impacts, and costs borne by residents become known. Even though a very small percentage of the ‘public’ have been involved to this point, the Township will be in the position to state that it provided ample opportunity for concerned residents to provide input. Another reason for the continued ‘public’ input is that there are a number of knowledgeable and experienced residents who are willing to provide input at public information centre meetings because they are not available (snowbirds who head to Florida and Arizona for the winter) to be a member of the project advisory team.

Once again, thank you for keeping me in the loop.

Pete

��

��

��

�� !"��#$%� � ��&��'(&')('� ��()%))�*�*+('�� !��"��#�#�$%�� &�� !��'�%'��(�� !��#��!��)��*�! ��!�+��&�,� ��!��!�)&�*�-!��! ��!��!�� ,��.��!�.�� .�!��+��!��!��!��!�� ,�� !��!�� !�� '�� !�-��!�� !��!��! �� ,��!�! �!��-!��'��

(*��!��,��*��,��,�� %--��*��*��*��*!�-��-�.//��/�0�� - �� -��1*��'��

� �

� �

� �

� �

'*2��!��!��!��!��3� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

Cleaarwater Beach Ratepayers Assocc/o Terry Breckenridge1535 Champlain RoadTiny, Ontario L9M 0C1(705) 549-8717

[email protected]

Alternative 4 does not preclude but also does not seem to have included the

possibility of constructing a treatment facility designed for and located in a

high-density area suitable for eventual (20+ years?) connection to sewer mains.

Has this been considered?

Should we perhaps think longer term? The western shore is currently high density.

Perhaps it should be zoned as a hamlet, and appropriate infrastructure planning

including water and sewer could be included as part of this study.

Septage from the rest of the township could be hauledto this location.

F

�

�

�� '%'��(�� !��#��!��!��+�� , �,��!��!��-��!�.��/��.��!��&�,� ��!��!�)&�*�-!��'��0�� !� �� !�� !��!�! �!��0��.��!��'-'"'��11��'�0'��!��/��!��$��-'"'�$��'$2�� !�� !��!��!� ��! �!��!��'�� !�� !� ��.��.�!��!��.�� !��! ��!�!�� !��.�!��3��!�� !�� '� �!��!��4��!� �� !� �� !��!��&�,� ��!��-!�� !�� !� ��!�� '�

$*2��!�� !�� 3� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

4*��-��!��3� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

�

��!��5�� 6 �1��!�� &��&��'(&')('%/'�5��+�� /��.�� 0�� +�� !��"��#�#�$%��)6�2*�2$789$�9�:�4��)6�2*�2$68;676�&8�� <!��'��

/�'��&.��0'�&�.'�0 =��!�/��.��'�%'��(�� !��#��!�� !�� .� ��"�!�� #1>�9%7��);��*�$72�177$�&4!'�2�7�:�4��)6�2*�9978$�11�&8��'�.��<=��'� ��

�

We would strongly suggest that no further steps be taken on a "made in Tiny" solution

until all North Simcoe options have been exhausted. A regional solution would be much more

cost effective and environmentally friendly. Septage is currently being trucked from Midland

and Penetanguishene properties with septic systems, as is sludge from their treatment plants.

Midland has capacity, albeit with some upgrade requirements. The additional revenue from

Tiny might be a welcome relief to Midland taxpayers. We are not aware of any formal

request having been submitted to or debated by Midland Council, nor of any public discussion

among Midland taxpayers. Should this not proceed before Tiny commits to a solution which

longer term proves wasteful and inadequate?

The process is commendable as far as it goes. However, there is a feeling that it is

proceeding as a means to justify a pre-conceived solution rather than fully evaluate

all possible technically feasible, environmentally friendly and cost effective options.

Detailed reports by the consultants rather than Powerpoint presentations should be

made available to taxpayers.

Date post:	20-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times