Main Treatment Plant -

Environmental Assessment Mediation Agreement

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To inform Council that Works and Emergency Services has been successful in reaching a mediation agreement for the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment, and to seek Council approval of the Mediation Agreement.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Ratification of the Mediation Agreement will obligate the City to undertake various studies and works which will have financial implications in the future. These works are consistent with those works identified in the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment (MTP EA). The mediation lays out a more formal implementation and public involvement role than was identified in the MTP EA document.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council adopt the Mediation Report, prepared by Stephen Garrod of Turkstra Mazza, for the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment; and

(2)subject to Recommendation No. (1), Council's agreement be transmitted to the Minister of the Environment in order to permit Ministry staff to complete the review of the MTP EA.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Clause No. 2 of Report No. 11 of The Works and Utilities Committee, adopted by City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, approved the engagement of a mediator for the MTP EA, and requested that the mediation report be sent to the Minister of the Environment by February 26, 1999. The mediation was to resolve issues raised by nine parties who have made submissions to the Minister of the Environment regarding the MTP EA. The submission date was extended to March 12, 1999, with Council's approval when it adopted Clause No. 3 of Report No. 2 of The Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of March 2, 3, and 4, 1999.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The former municipality of Metropolitan Toronto submitted the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment to the Minister of the Environment for approval under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) in December, 1997. The new City of Toronto assumed responsibility for it on January 1, 1998. The purpose of the MTP EA is to establish a plan to meet future wastewater needs in the MTP service area to the year 2011, and to improve the effectiveness of the MTP at reducing environmental impacts. Nine groups or individuals made submissions to the Minister requesting a hearing and/or mediation to address outstanding issues of concern. In 1998, the City invited the submitters to participate in a mediation with an independent mediator to attempt to resolve issues. All submitters who had outstanding concerns agreed to participate. Three additional individuals also participated.

Twenty-four all-day mediation sessions were held between December 16, 1998, and April 1, 1999, with representatives of the City and the other participants. During that time, presentations were made to the mediation participants by various City staff, MOE staff, and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff and consultants, on technical aspects of the MTP, associated infrastructure and processes, the EA process and near shore water quality issues. The intensity of the schedule and the workload on all participants was very demanding. All participants worked hard, in good faith, to resolve issues.

Except for two individuals, the participants, including the representatives of the City, reached a comprehensive Mediation Agreement settling most of the issues that had been outstanding at the beginning of the process. Issues that were addressed and resolved by agreed amendments to the Environmental Assessment or by agreed Conditions of Approval include:

(i)Guiding Principles for the implementation of the EA approval;

(ii)the implementation of ultraviolet disinfection of MTP effluent;

(iii)the discontinuation of chlorination of MTP effluent;

(iv)triggers for the potential implementation of tertiary treatment;

(v)implementation details for a new Sewer Use Bylaw;

(vi)a revised Wet Weather Flow Master Plan study process;

(vii)a process to finalize and review the Water Efficiency Plan;

(viii)implementation details for the beneficial use of Biosolids;

(ix)implementation details for the termination of incineration;

(x)a Master Plan study process for all solids generated in the water and wastewater systems;

(xi)plant optimization and economic issues;

(xii)plant capacity issues;

(xiii)good neighbour issues, including: noise, odour, air emissions, truck traffic, visual impacts and the storage of chemicals on site;

(xiv)the preparation of a landscape architecture Site Plan for the MTP Site;

(xv)near shore water quality issues, including Coatsworth Cut;

(xvi)a study and approval process for the proposed new outfall pipe;

(xvii)a revised implementation plan and five year review process;

(xviii)a master timeline for the implementation plan;

(xix)Terms of Reference for the MTP Neighbourhood Liaison Committee; and

(xx)an Implementation and Compliance Monitoring Committee (ICMC).

The unresolved issues among the signatories to the Mediation Agreement are:

(i)a request, supported by all participants, other than the City representatives, for a comprehensive public health study of residents who live in the vicinity of MTP;

(ii)a request, supported by all participants, other than the City representatives, for a comprehensive study of the potential role of the private sector in the ownership or management of all or parts of the wastewater treatment system in the City; and

(iii)a request, supported by all participants, other than the City representatives, for participant funding from the City to compensate them for the time and expertise that they contributed to this process. This request has not been refused by the City, but remains outstanding as of the date of this report.

In addition to these specific unresolved issues, two participants did not execute the Mediation Agreement. One individual participant felt that none of her issues was addressed satisfactorily by the agreement. The other individual, representing the Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association (LANA), although supportive of both the mediation process and the substance of the Mediation Agreement, concluded that she could not execute the Agreement because the unresolved issue relating to the request for a public health study was so central to her organization's primary interest of community health that they could not support the approval of this Environmental Assessment in the absence of such a study.

The Mediation Agreement, contained in this Mediator's Report, sets out the details of the amendments and the conditions of approval that, subject to a ratification process, the signatories have agreed to request the Minister of the Environment to make as his decision in this matter. Since a number of the participants of this mediation, including City staff, participated in a representative capacity, their agreement is subject to ratification by their group or organization and by City Council before it can be considered final. Once the ratification process has been completed, the mediator will file confirmation of such with the Minister.

The Mediator's Report was submitted to the Minister of the Environment on April 16, 1999. A copy of this report is available from the City Clerk. The delay in submission was to allow for further discussion and refinement of the final report.

As noted above, the Mediator's Report recognizes the agreement reached on many of the issues. These agreements are in line with the MTP EA document, but provide a more definite course of action and timelines, as well as provide for continued public involvement. The agreement establishes the need to co-ordinate and integrate other studies and activities which will have an impact on the Main Treatment Plant.

The agreement will be distributed to all Departments to ensure that all activities are in compliance with this agreement. In order to ensure that the public continues to have a vital role in the implementation of the MTP EA-related projects, as well as such related projects as the Wet Weather Master Plan, Short- and Long-term Biosolids Plans, Water and Wastewater Systems Solids Management Master Plan, and the Water Efficiency Plan, the agreement has established a steering committee model for all these related studies with membership from the signatories of the Mediation Agreement, as well as Councillors and staff. These committees would report through the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the appropriate Standing Committee.

The City should recognize and value the significant commitment of time, effort, and public spirited contribution that all signatories to this Mediation Agreement have made to the MTP EA. The City should also recognize that these individuals have developed a level of understanding about the complexity and variety of the inter-related issues associated with wastewater treatment that would help inform the various initiatives and planning process that will be involved with the MTP EA approval. Further, the City should recognize their commitment in this process to resolving disputes in a co-operative, constructive, and collaborative fashion.

There are a number of studies, i.e., Wet Weather Master Plan, Water Efficiency Plan, Water and Wastewater System Solids Management Master Plan, which extend beyond the Main Treatment Plant, but the decision taken will affect the Main Plant. The Mediation Agreement has established a mechanism for co-ordination to ensure that the decisions taken are in compliance with MTP EA and this Mediation Agreement.

The Mediation Agreement has established that the name of the plant should be changed to the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant to reflect its geographical location.

The areas where agreement was not reached are still the subject of further discussion. In the case of the Health Study, Water Pollution Control staff are arranging a meeting with Public Health and members of the mediation to discuss the potential parameters for a community health study and to establish the cost of such a study, as well as funding mechanisms.

The role of the private sector in the ownership or management of the treatment plant is not an issue that should be considered as part of an Environmental Assessment. It may well be the subject of further reporting by this department or corporately, but no undertaking is necessary at this time.

Conclusions:

This Mediation Agreement represents the conclusion of nine years' work on the MTP EA and three months of intensive mediation. This Mediation Agreement demonstrates to the Ministry of the Environment the City's commitment to real public participation in the planning process and our sensitivity to the concerns of the public. This should enable the Minister to issue approval of the MTP EA. We recommend the approval of the Mediation Agreement and once approved by Council, we will notify the Minister of the Environment.

Contact Name:

Mr. R. M. Pickett, Director, Water Pollution Control

Telephone: (416) 392-8230; Fax: (416) 397-0908

e-mail: bob_pickett@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following communication (May 11, 1999) from Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair; Mr. David Done, Secretary; and Ms. Peg Lush, Member at Large, Safe Sewage Committee:

This letter is to provide written endorsement for the Mediation Agreement, from our organization, the Public Committee for Safe Sewage Treatment in Metropolitan Toronto (the Safe Sewage Committee).

The three members of our executive, Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair; Mr. David Done, Secretary; and Ms.Peg Lush, Member at Large, participated in the mediation process.

The purpose of the Safe Sewage Committee has been to ensure the ongoing commitment of interested members of the public in the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment. As participants in the mediation process, we have signed on as individuals, and by consensus, as the executive of the Safe Sewage Committee, endorse the Mediator's Report as being in the best interest of our members, and consistent with the founding principles of our committee (attached).

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following communication (May 13, 1999) from Ms. Karen Buck, Ms. Laura Jones, Mr. Jim Neff, Ms. Colleen Prentice, Ms. Lisa Tolentine, and Mr. Paul Young, Directors, Citizens for a Safe Environment:

The members of the Board of Directors of Citizens for a Safe Environment endorse the Mediator's Report dated April 16, 1999, on behalf of the membership of our organization. Two of our Board Members, Ms. Karen Buck and Mr. Jim Neff, were participants in the mediation.

This letter provides you with written endorsement by our organization of the Mediation Agreement, as agreed upon.

--------

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (May 18, 1999) from Mr. Brian Cochrane, President, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, advising that one of the "unresolved issues" among the signatories to the Mediation Agreement is a request for a comprehensive study of the potential role of the private sector in the ownership or management of all parts of the wastewater system in the City; and advising that Local 416 believes the public interest is best served by having the City continue to own and operate its water and wastewater treatment facilities.

Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.