A. General Comments There…

A. General Comments

There are several grammatical and spelling errors scattered throughout the Draft Design Criteria and the two draft ECA's.

There is a general concern regarding local politics entering into engineering decisions and pressure being put on municipal engineering staff to agree with developer designs even though the design may not meet Municipal Servicing Standards or MECP Design Criteria. In addition, there are concerns with developers pressing for fast turn around from the municipality to review, approval and/or sign off on the developer's design. Approximately 2.5 years ago, MECP sent consulting firms an email indicating that many approval applications were inadequate and did not sufficient information. This issue will be transferred to municipalities that do not have the expertise to question what has or has not been submitted.

It would be helpful if MECP could provide small rural municipalities with a checklist of key information to look for in the review of developer's designs to ensure that the submission by the developer is complete. We understand that there have been issues with incomplete designs being submitted to MECP and this may continue with the proposed changes to linear infrastructure ECA's. MECP has significantly more experience with the review and approval of these types of ECA's compared to small rural municipalities and there is concern that municipalities will be held responsible for any errors or omissions that are not caught prior to the municipality signing off on the developer's design. There should be a mechanism for holding the developer responsible for any and all errors and omissions in the design. Holding the developer responsible should be written into the legislation so that the municipality is not paying to correct mistakes.

Will the municipality be able to approve/sign off on its own changes to linear infrastructure? When Engineer's reports were required for water systems after the Walkerton tragedy, municipalities were required to have an independent Professional Engineer review the status of the existing works.

It would also be helpful for MECP to provide a list of other potential approvals that may be required for linear works. There are some more obscure approvals that municipalities may not be aware of that should be secured before the municipality signs off. Some of these approvals include but are not limited to: Conservation Authority (fisheries, hazard land, source water protection, etc.), Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (species at risk, shore land works, Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, etc.), Ministry of Culture & Heritage (Ontario Heritage Act) Federal Government agencies (Fisheries Act -Department of Fisheries & Oceans (DFO), Species at Risk Act (SARA), Navigation Protection Act, Transport Canada (railway crossings, etc.), Planning Act, Aboriginal & Treaty Rights, etc.), Environmental Assessment Act (provincial and federal). A list of potential projects/instances when these other approvals may be required would also be beneficial. This could be similar to the consultation list provided in an appendix for Municipal Class Environmental Assessments.

Has there been any consideration of allowing small rural municipalities to opt out of this proposed change to linear infrastructure ECA's if they do not have in house expertise to review the designs by developers or do not have easy access to a consulting engineering firm to review the changes to the works? Municipalities are assuming significant liability with the proposed changes to the linear infrastructure ECA process.

Would it be possible for MECP to provide example wording for Agreements with developers to cover the proposed linear infrastructure ECA changes especially a limit of liability clause and a transfer of liability for errors and omissions not identified during the developer's design review by the municipality back to the developer. Further, that the developer must pay any and all fines related to the development following identification of issues via an MECP inspection.

Will MECP use the sewage system inventories to discipline municipalities for works that do not have ECA's?

MECP was always the second set of eyes or final QA/QC for linear works and welcomed by many Engineers. This will now disappear and additional PEAK hours may be needed for some Engineers as MECP is no longer checking the design.

The potential lack of consistency between how municipalities deal with the proposed changes to linear infrastructure ECA's could result in friction with developers.

The design of stormwater management ponds is a specialty and MECP should remain the approval agency for them. They have a high potential to impact the environment since the vast majority of them contribute to a discharge to rivers and streams either directly or indirectly via downstream storm sewers.

Low impact development strategies are not well known or understood in rural communities and are not likely to be implemented leading to a higher cumulative impact on receiving streams.

The design of sanitary sewage pumping stations should still need the approval of MECP. These designs are unique for every station and require specialized knowledge that few linear infrastructure engineers have experience with.

Further clarification is needed on whether or not culverts and ditches are considered part of the municipal stormwater system.

Some consideration should be given to separating ECA's for different communities in the same municipality similar to the drinking water permits/licenses. Each individual water system has its own license. If the communities are linked together by a watermain, then the DWWP’s are together but if the water systems are not connected then each system has its own permit/license. The other option would be to separate the systems’ inventories in Schedules A and B. In some municipalities, different communities have some of the same street names so if the amended ECA is not separated by community, the inventories could get confusing.

The legislation should state that the municipal sign off does not relieve the developer of any responsibility regarding the design. Further, there should be some wording to decide who has the final word if there is a disagreement between the developer's engineer and the municipality's engineer or their consulting engineer. Will MECP act as a mediator if there are issues?

B. Comments on Draft Design Criteria

Line 163: The definition of "Sewage Collection System" should include the word "sanitary" in front of the words "sewage works" to clearly define the difference between sanitary sewage systems and storm water sewage systems.

Suggest adding a definition for "Stormwater Collection System".

Suggest adding a definition for minor and major system for stormwater design as a minor system is referenced in Line 638.

Line 192: Provide a list in checklist form of possible federal and provincial legislation that may be applicable to linear infrastructure projects. See previous comments above.

Line 197: If the definition for sewage collection system is not changed in Line 163 to include the word sanitary, then add the word “sanitary” in line 197 in front of the words “sewage collection system”.

Line 204: Add the word "May" or "Could" at the start of line 204 as sanitary collection systems do not normally cause an adverse discharge to the environment. Such discharges typically occur intermittently due to excessive I/I or equipment failure. Is a surcharge of a sewer into basements and/or a roadside ditch constitute an adverse discharge?

Line 207: Provide a definition of a stormwater system so the is no ambiguity with sanitary, combined sewers, etc. that outlet to a wastewater treatment plant.

Lines 207 to 215: Comment Re: Draft Design Criteria, Section 1.1.2
• This general requirement references the “uncommitted reserve hydraulic capacity” of the downstream conveyance system or receiving facilities. It is noted that this term “uncommitted reserve hydraulic capacity” is defined in the Definitions section of the draft design criteria, and that this definition references MECP’s Procedure D-5-1. This referenced procedure uses the term very specifically in the cases of sewage and water treatment facilities. We believe that this term ought not to be used in relation to the hydraulic capacity of downstream storm sewers.
• In the case where a project will result in the surcharging of the downstream storm conveyance system under the design storm, we would like to confirm that such a project is still eligible to be pre-authorized under the Linear ECA, subject to the acceptance by the municipality of the surcharged conditions. We note that it is very often the case in small municipalities that the downstream sewers are undersized and are unable to freely convey the design flows from even retrofit projects, wherein no new catchments are being added to the system.

Line 217: The word sewers is missing after the word sanitary.

Line 221: The words "or storm sewers" should not be included in this line.

Lines 225 to 227: Consider adding the words "including allowances for infiltration and inflow" in this section. Consider adding wording possible impacts upstream as well. If there is an outlet to a sewage pumping station, there is a possibility of surcharging upstream sewers and flooding basements. Should there be a requirement for the installation of backflow prevention valves on services that are below the overflow outlet of the sewage pumping station?

Lines 245 to 247: Comment Re: Draft Design Criteria, Section 1.2.1
• This general requirement references soil and hydrogeological conditions identified by a “geotechnical professional”. We ask the MECP to please confirm that the intention of this requirement is not that the services of a “geotechnical professional” be used for every project, but that if the services of such an individual are used, that the findings of such a professional are considered in the design. We ask the MECP to please confirm that a project wherein the services of a “geotechnical professional” are not obtained is still eligible to be pre-authorized under the Linear ECA.

Line 247: In the definition section, provide a definition of a geotechnical professional as referenced in line 247.

Line 378: Add the work "below" after "0.5 m" in this line.

Line 384: More detail should be provided regarding the external wrap for MH's.

Lines 415 and 416: Would MH frame and cover inserts/pans be acceptable?

Lines 422 to 424: The last sentence in Item 2.10.12 does not read right. Not sure what is trying to be said here.

Line 458: Add the word "Gravity" at the beginning of this line.

Line 499: This line does not make sense. Cut and paste error????

Line 653: Table reference appears to be incorrect. Should it be Table 3???

Line 705: Table reference appears to be incorrect> Should be Table 6?????

Line 781: Add the words "owner and" before "operating authority".

Line 874: Add the words "or as required by the owner" at the end of the sentence. Higher pressures for testing may be desired to ensure the forecemain is robust for transient pressures.

Comment Re: Draft Design Criteria, Sections 2.6.1, 3.5.2, 5.5.2
• These requirements all reference the assessment of native soils for contamination prior to selecting pipe material. We would like for the MECP to please confirm that this assessment does not necessarily require soil sampling. It is noted that in the case of a greenfield development, or in many retrofit scenarios, that there is no reason to assume that there is any soil contamination. We believe that the decision as to whether to complete soil sampling in the design phase should be at the discretion of the design engineer and/or municipality.