4. Comments on Environmental Assessment (EA) Draft
Terms of Reference released by Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the Carp Road Waste Management Facility

commentaires sur le cadre de référence préliminaire
de l'évaluation environnementale (EE) publié par Waste Management
of Canada Corporation pour l'installation de gestion des déchets du chemin Carp

Committee recommendations as amended

That Council endorse the comments contained in Attachment 1 as the City’s comments on Waste Management of Canada Corporation’s Environmental Assessment Draft Terms of Reference for the Carp Road Waste Management Facility, and direct staff to forward them to the Ministry of the Environment and Waste Management of Canada Corporation for consideration, and;

That Council approve Motions 1 through 6 as recommended by the Planning and Environment Committee on 23 May 2006, as follows:

Motion 1

WHEREAS, the record of compliance with environmental law of any proponent that seeks a new or amended Certificate of Approval must come before the Minister for consideration;

AND WHEREAS, consideration of the environmental record of a proponent will both encourage compliance with environmental law in this province and ensure that the risk to our environment is minimized by removing from the industry companies with a history of violations;

AND WHEREAS, companies that operate waste disposal facilities have a responsibility to the people living nearby, to the environment, and to the generations that will inhabit the local environment in the future;

AND WHEREAS the Ontario Protocol for Updating Certificates of Approval for Waste Management Protocol Guidance and Direction issued by Ministry of the Environment in January 2005, helps guide the Minister in her decision, gives assistance to proponents and opponents alike in understanding the kind of information the Minister will consider, and provides a mechanism by which existing Certificates of Approval may be re-evaluated;

AND WHEREAS, the Ministry may review an existing Certificate of Approval when an owner makes an application to the Ministry for a change to the existing equipment, processes, production rates or for an expansion of plant capacity (excluding applications for minor changes and administrative amendments);

AND WHEREAS, the City seeks the express assurance of the Ministry of the Environment as to the compliance obligations incumbent upon the proponent and status thereof for the operation of the waste management facility on Carp Road;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council request that the Minster of the Environment:

1. Provide a complete copy of Waste Management of Canada Corporation’s (WM) Carp Road waste management facility’s Certificate of Approval, and any other related provincial, municipal or federal permits, approvals and/or agreements, to the City and be placed on the public record for review; and,

2. Provide all regulatory compliance reports and complaint/response records for the Carp Road waste management facility, submitted by the proponent, WM to the MOE for the last 10 years of operation, and;

3. Hold in abeyance any further review of the draft Terms of Reference until the regulatory compliance status of the Carp Road site and operations of WM is confirmed, and;

4. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council circulate this motion to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of the Environment, all Ottawa area M.P.P.’s, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the appropriate staff at the Ministry of the Environment.

Motion 2

WHEREAS, the draft Terms of Reference document, required as the first step to complete a full individual EA, is generally deficient as to the purpose, rationale and alternatives to the landfill expansion proposal;

AND WHEREAS, this document needs to be extensively revised to provide clarity as to the proposal, the plans for evaluation of alternatives and alternative methods and ensure that a commitment to an overall EA monitoring strategy is undertaken;

AND WHEREAS, Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) must give key stakeholders sufficient detail of its proposed EA, so that these stakeholders can give more than just pro forma input, and are not left to speculate as to what WM may or may not do;

AND WHEREAS, based on the current document, the City’s assessment is that WM has not met the requirements of the EA guidelines and that an EA conducted in accordance with the draft ToR document will likely lead to an environmentally unsound proposal;

AND WHEREAS, the west end community of Ottawa is profoundly concerned that its health and well-being, and will be, adversely affected by this Landfill and any proposed expansion thereof;

AND WHEREAS, approximately 10,000 people have signed the petition in opposition to the Landfill expansion drafted by MPP Sterling, and presented to the Legislature by MPPs Sterling and MacLeod and based on statements of the Minister of Environment in the Legislature, each signature on this petition in opposition to the Landfill expansion will be considered a separate comment;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council:

1. Request the Minister of Environment allow the City and the public to present further submissions in response to any amended ToR proposal by WM that may be filed in the future to MOE, and that the City and the public be given no less than 180 days to respond to any such amended proposal, and;

2. Request the Minister of the Environment to require any EA conducted by WM be peer reviewed by independent experts paid for by WM and that the review be supervised by the City of Ottawa, and;

3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council circulate this motion to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of the Environment, all Ottawa area M.P.P.’s, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the appropriate staff at the Ministry of the Environment.

Motion 3

WHEREAS, in mid-January, Waste Management Corporation of Canada (WM) announced its proposal to expand its Carp Road landfill from 8 to 26 million cubic metres in 25 years - a three-fold increase in size;

AND WHEREAS, during the period for public comment, sharing information, resources, and expertise, four representative community groups recently submitted one joint set of comments on the draft Terms of Reference to WM, titled Response of the Community including a separate set of comments by OttawaLandfillWatch.org, titled Alternatives to Landfill for Waste Disposal in the City of Ottawa;

AND WHEREAS, accompanying the joint submission was a separate report by the Stittsville Village Association (SVA), titled Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference;

AND WHEREAS, these documents have been endorsed by all four community groups and are the culmination of an unprecedented effort by hundreds of volunteers and the result of thousands of volunteer hours and includes the discussion group reports from the March 28th Community Action Forum convened by Councillors Feltmate, El-Chantiry and Stavinga and benefits from a legal review;

AND WHEREAS, these reports include over 250 recommendations and thousands of individual comments that must be addressed prior to the formal submission and approval of WM’s Terms of Reference;

AND WHEREAS, among the concerns raised are the existing conditions and operations of WM’s facility, justification of the need for additional disposal capacity, and the long-term sustainability of such an expansive undertaking;

AND WHEREAS, these reports also draw attention to the disparity between the provincial target for landfill diversion and the absence of effective policies and regulations for managing industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) waste and note that over 60% of the waste entering WM’s facility is ICI;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council:

1. Request the Minister of Environment to consider the full public record compiled as a result of the draft Terms of Reference and advise the City of actions to be undertaken in conjunction with its review of the Terms of Reference, and;

2. Circulate this motion to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of the Environment, all Ottawa area M.P.P.’s, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the appropriate staff at the Ministry of the Environment.

Motion 4

WHEREAS, the City delivers a broad spectrum of residential solid waste services including the collection and disposal of municipal solid waste and the diversion of materials from landfill;

AND WHEREAS, in 2005, this resulted in the collection of 319,500 tonnes of residential waste, of which 108,949 tonnes, or 34%, was diverted from disposal;

AND WHEREAS, based on limited information collected from private waste collection and landfill contractors, over twice as much solid waste was collected from the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, with only 17.5% of that diverted from landfill and these services are provided to local businesses, employers and service providers through the work of a number of private contractors;

AND WHEREAS, although the City is not responsible for the ICI waste collection, diversion and disposal services, Council’s recent decision to offer waste collection and diversion service to the small business community through the Yellow Bag program, is an initial step towards minimizing landfill requirements for this sector;

AND WHEREAS, in accordance with the City’s Integrated Waste Management Master Plan continued efforts are underway to develop initiatives to maximize waste diversion and minimize landfill capacity consumption including Residential Waste Diversion Strategy and Education and Communication Programs;

AND WHEREAS, the City will be undertaking a review of new and emerging technologies through a Request for Expression of Interest (REOI) to be issued in June 2006 with a summary review of this Alternative Technologies REIO expected to be before Committee in the Fall of 2006;

AND WHEREAS, efforts are also underway to review the adequacy of the Waste Characterization study completed in 2000 for the residential and ICI sectors;

AND WHEREAS, this review will assist the City in potential selection of alternative technologies and as such, financial and staffing requirements that are to be identified as part of the 2007 Budget process;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council:

1. Direct that the REOI to be undertaken include a thorough examination of the suite of technologies for managing both residential and ICI waste streams.

2. Revisit its Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP) to develop comprehensive city wide residential and ICI waste management strategies, and;

a) That this undertaking examine such matters as the management of ICI waste, municipally-operated alternatives competing with, or replacing, privately operated landfills for both residential and ICI waste, regulatory requirements, recycling programs, diversion measures, alternative disposal solutions, waste-to-energy systems, and environmentally-sustainable landfills, as well as the implementation of a process to ensure the Plan is regularly updated to include new insights garnered from initiatives piloted/implemented by other municipalities in Ontario and elsewhere; and

b) That this undertaking be conducted expeditiously with funds to be made available in 2006 from the Solid Waste Compensation Reserve Fund; and,

3. Formally request Waste Management to give due consideration to the ongoing efforts of the City to address its waste management needs.

4. Formally request Waste Services Inc., who are concurrently preparing draft terms of reference for an environmental assessment to increase the capacity of its Navan Road landfill, give due consideration to the ongoing efforts of the City to address its waste management needs, and;

5. Circulate this motion to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of the Environment, all Ottawa area M.P.P.’s, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the appropriate staff at the Ministry of the Environment.

Motion 5

WHEREAS, recognizing a looming waste management problem, Ontario governments in the late 1980s and in early 1990s introduced a variety of policies, regulations and funding programs to introduce, then develop and enhance waste diversion, including the Waste Diversion Act, 2002;

AND WHEREAS, in June 2004, the MOE released a Discussion Paper and conducted public consultation sessions on how to achieve the Provincial-wide goal of 60% waste diversion with extensive discussions on several key topics, such as accelerating centralized composting for residential waste and the feasibility of phasing-in a ban on disposal of key organics and recyclable materials; renewing commitment on institutional, commercial and industrial (ICI) waste diversion; reducing packaging and increasing the recycled content in products and packaging; finding new waste diversion technologies; and initiating a Province wide monitoring system for waste;

AND WHEREAS, despite these efforts, Provincial leadership has diminished in recent years, to the extent that in January 2005 the Ontario Waste Management Association submitted a report entitled “The Private Sector ICI and Waste Management System in Ontario” and in December 2005, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario submitted a “Proposal for a Provincial Integrated Waste Management Strategy”;

AND WHEREAS, the Province has the authority and regulatory ability to directly impact diversion rates and lower the reliance on landfills and has not taken any concrete action directing the ICI sector to achieve the 60% diversion goal;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council approve:

1. That City staff expedite the review of existing regulatory involvement, monitoring, diversion and service delivery opportunities and mandates to encourage diversion efforts with the local ICI sector and report back to Planning and Environment Committee in Winter 2006/2007.

2. That the Province be requested to increase enforcement of existing regulations such as Waste Audits and Waste Reduction Work Plans (O. Reg 102/94) and Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Source Separation Programs (O. Reg. 103/94).

3. That the Province be requested to establish a Task Force involving appropriate stakeholders, including municipal representatives from Association of Municipalities of Ontario, LUMCO, Rural Ontario Municipalities Association and representatives from ICI sectors, Ontario Waste Management Association, Recycling Council of Ontario and others to formulate integrated waste management strategies for areas within the Province of Ontario, and;

4. That this motion be circulated to the Premier of Ontario, Minister of the Environment, all Ottawa area M.P.P.’s, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Large Urban Mayors’ Council of Ontario (LUMCO), the Rural Ontario Municipalities Association (ROMA), the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) and the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO)

MOTION 6

WHEREAS limitations of existing landfill capacity and the social, economic and environmental costs of expanding landfill is forcing the City of Ottawa and its citizens to rethink waste collection and disposal strategies;

WHEREAS waste diversion is the most fundamental solution to reducing waste disposal;

WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has set a 60% waste diversion target to be achieved by 2008;

WHEREAS in the residential MSW sector the City of Ottawa will achieve this target by 2008;

WHEREAS there does not appear to be a waste diversion strategy to achieve this provincial target in the ICI sector;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council:

1. Direct that the City of Ottawa as an institution become a model for waste diversion for the ICI sector by developing waste diversion programs (including recycling) for its offices, buildings and public facilities;

2. Direct that such proposals to begin implementing these programs be developed for the 2007 budget, with final implementation being achieved by the 2008 budget;

3. Formally request Waste Management to give due consideration to the ongoing efforts of the City to address its waste management needs;

4. Formally request Waste Services Inc., who are concurrently preparing draft terms of reference for an environmental assessment to increase the capacity of its Navan Road landfill, give due consideration to the ongoing effort of the City to address its waste management needs;

5. Circulate this motion to the Premier of Ontario, Minister of the Environment, all Ottawa area M.P.P.’s, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the appropriate staff at the Ministry of the Environment.

Recommandations modifiÉes du Comité

Que le Conseil municipal considère les commentaires inclus dans l’annexe 1 comme les commentaires de la Ville sur le cadre de référence préliminaire de l’évaluation environnementale faite par l’entreprise Waste Management of Canada pour l’installation de gestion des déchets du chemin Carp et ordonner au personnel de les acheminer au ministère de l’Environnement et à l’entreprise Waste Management of Canada pour qu’ils les étudient, et;

Que le Conseil approuve les Motions numérotées de 1 à 6 telles que recommandées par le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement le 23 mai 2006 et qui suivent :

MOTION 1

ATTENDU QUE le dossier en matière de respect des lois environnementales de tout promoteur cherchant à obtenir ou à faire renouveler un certificat d’approbation doit être soumis à l’examen du Ministre;

ATTENDU QUE l’examen du dossier environnemental des promoteurs favorisera le respect des lois environnementales dans la province et permettra de minimiser les risques pour l’environnement en assurant le retrait de ce secteur d’activité des entreprises ayant violé les lois environnementales à diverses reprises;

ATTENDU QUE les entreprises qui exploitent des installations d’élimination des déchets ont des responsabilités à l’égard des personnes qui vivent à proximité de ces installations, de l’environnement et des générations qui habiteront l’environnement local dans l’avenir;

ATTENDU QUE le Protocole ontarien pour la mise à jour des certificats d’approbation pour la gestion des déchets, que le ministère de l’Environnement a rendu public en janvier 2005, facilite la décision de la Ministre, aide les promoteurs autant que les adversaires à comprendre le genre de renseignements que la Ministre prendra en considération et constitue un mécanisme de réévaluation des certificats d’approbation existants;

ATTENDU QUE le Ministère peut réexaminer un certificat d’approbation existant lorsqu’un propriétaire lui demande d’apporter un changement à l’équipement, aux procédés et aux rythmes de production existants ou souhaite faire approuver l’agrandissement de la capacité d’une installation (exception faite des demandes portant sur des modifications mineures ou de nature administrative);

ATTENDU QUE la Ville cherche à obtenir une assurance expresse du Ministère en ce qui concerne les obligations qui incombent au promoteur et à son statut par rapport à l’exploitation de l’installation de gestion des déchets du chemin Carp;

IL EST RÉSOLU que le Conseil demande à la ministre de l’Environnement :

1. De fournir à la Ville et de rendre publics la version complète du certificat d’approbation délivré à la société Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) pour l’installation de gestion des déchets du chemin Carp ainsi que les approbations, ententes et permis fédéraux, provinciaux et municipaux connexes;

2. De produire tous les rapports de conformité réglementaires ainsi que les dossiers de plainte relatifs à l’installations de gestion des déchets du chemin Carp soumis par le promoteur (Waste Management) au ministère de l’Environnement relativement aux 10 dernières années d’exploitation;

3. De suspendre tout nouvel examen du cadre de référence jusqu’à ce que le statut de l’installation du chemin et de la société Waste Management en matière de conformité à la réglementation ait été confirmé;

4. De porter la présente résolution à la connaissance du premier ministre et de la ministre de l’Environnement de l’Ontario, des députés provinciaux de la région d’Ottawa, de l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario et du personnel compétent du ministère de l’Environnement de l’Ontario.

MOTION 2

ATTENDU QUE le projet de cadre de référence, première étape d’une évaluation environnementale distincte, comporte des lacunes sur le plan des objectifs, de la raison d’être et des solutions de rechange à la proposition d’agrandissement de la décharge;

ATTENDU QUE le présent document doit faire l’objet d’une révision en profondeur afin d’assurer la clarté de la proposition et des plans d’évaluation des solutions et méthodes de rechange ainsi que la prise d’un engagement envers la stratégie globale de contrôle de l’évaluation environnementale;

ATTENDU QUE la société Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) doit fournir aux principaux intervenants suffisamment de renseignements au sujet de son projet d’évaluation environnementale pour que ces derniers puissent formuler des commentaires étayés et qu’ils n’en soient pas réduits à spéculer sur les projets de l’entreprise;

ATTENDU QUE, se fondant sur le document actuel, la Ville estime que la société Waste Management n’a pas rempli les exigences des lignes directrices sur l’évaluation environnementale et qu’une évaluation environnementale réalisée conformément au projet de cadre de référence aboutira probablement à une proposition qui ne sera pas valable d’un point de vue environnemental;

ATTENDU QUE la collectivité de l’Ouest de la ville craint sérieusement que cette décharge et son éventuel agrandissement aient des conséquences négatives sur sa santé et son bien-être;

ATTENDU QU’environ 10 000 personnes ont signé, afin d’exprimer leur opposition à l’agrandissement de la décharge, une pétition rédigée par le député provincial Sterling, que celui-ci a déposé à l’Assemblée législative avec la députée MacLeod, et que, selon les déclarations faites par la ministre de l’Environnement à l’Assemblée législative, chacune des signatures figurant sur cette pétition sera considérée comme un commentaire distinct;

IL EST RÉSOLU que le Conseil :

1. Demande à la ministre de l’Environnement de permettre à la Ville et à la population de présenter d’autres mémoires si la société Waste Management soumet un cadre de référence modifié au ministère de l’Environnement, et que la Ville et la population devront avoir au moins 180 jours pour répondre à une éventuelle proposition modifiée;

2. Demande à la ministre de l’Environnement d’exiger que toute évaluation environnementale menée par la société Waste Management fasse l’objet d’un examen par des spécialistes indépendants sous la supervision de la Ville d’Ottawa;

3. Porte la présente résolution à la connaissance du premier ministre et de la ministre de l’Environnement de l’Ontario, des députés provinciaux de la région d’Ottawa, de l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario et du personnel compétent du ministère de l’Environnement de l’Ontario.

MOTION 3

ATTENDU QUE, à la mi-janvier, la société Waste Management Corporation of Canada (WM) a fait connaître sa proposition visant à porter la capacité de la décharge du chemin Carp de 8 à 26 millions de mètres cubes en 25 ans, soit trois fois sa capacité actuelle;

ATTENDU QUE, durant la période réservée aux commentaires de la population et au partage de renseignements, de ressources et d’expertise, quatre groupes communautaires représentatifs ont soumis conjointement à la société Waste Management un ensemble de commentaires, sous le titre Response of the Community (Réponse de la collectivité), y compris un ensemble de commentaires distincts soumis par l’organisme OttawaLandfillWatch.org sous le titre Alternatives to Landfill for Waste Disposal in the City of Ottawa (Solutions de rechange aux décharges pour l’élimination des déchets à Ottawa);

ATTENDU QUE les commentaires conjoints s’accompagnaient d’un rapport distinct de la Stittsville Village Association (SVA) intitulé Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference (Commentaires sur le projet de cadre de référence pour l’évaluation environnementale);

ATTENDU QUE les quatre organismes communautaires souscrivent à ces documents, qui constituent l’aboutissement d’un effort sans précédent de la part de centaines de bénévoles et le résultat de milliers d’heures de bénévolat; qui tiennent compte des rapports de groupes de discussion consécutifs au Forum d’action communautaire du 28 mars convoqué par les conseillers Feltmate, El-Chantiry et Stavinga, et qu’ils ont fait l’objet d’un examen juridique;

ATTENDU QUE ces rapports renferment plus de 250 recommandations ainsi que les commentaires de milliers de personnes, dont il faut tenir compte avant la présentation et l’approbation officielles du cadre de référence de la société Waste Management;

ATTENDU QUE les préoccupations concernent notamment l’état et l’exploitation actuels de l’installation de la société Waste Management, la justification invoquée pour l’agrandissement et la viabilité d’une opération aussi coûteuse;

ATTENDU QUE ces rapports font également ressortir la disparité qui existe entre l’objectif provincial de ré-acheminement des déchets et l’absence de politique et de règlement efficaces pour la gestion des déchets industriels, commerciaux et institutionnels (ICI), tout en soulignant le fait que plus de 60 p. 100 des déchets déversés à l’installation de la société Waste Management sont des déchets industriels, commerciaux et institutionnels;

IL EST RÉSOLU que le Conseil :

1. Demande à la ministre de l’Environnement de tenir compte de l’ensemble du dossier public constitué à la suite de la publication du projet de cadre de référence et de faire part à la Ville des mesures devant être prises simultanément à l’examen du cadre de référence.

2. Porte la présente résolution à la connaissance du premier ministre et de la ministre de l’Environnement de l’Ontario, des députés provinciaux de la région d’Ottawa, de l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario et du personnel compétent du ministère de l’Environnement de l’Ontario.

MOTION 4

ATTENDU QUE la Ville fournit un large éventail de services liés aux déchets solides résidentiels, notamment des services de collecte et d’élimination des déchets solides municipaux et le ré-acheminement de matières qui autrement seraient déversées dans les décharges municipales;

ATTENDU QUE, en 2005, ce service s’est traduit par la collecte de 319 500 tonnes de déchets résidentiels, dont 108,949 tonnes, soit 34 p. 100, ont été ré-acheminées;

ATTENDU QUE, selon l’information limitée obtenue des entrepreneurs privés qui assurent la collecte de déchets et l’exploitation de décharges, plus du double de déchets solides ont été recueillis auprès du secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel (ICI), dont seulement 17,5 p. 100 ont été ré-acheminés, et que ces services sont fournis aux entreprises, employeurs et fournisseurs de services locaux par un certain nombre d’entrepreneurs privés;

ATTENDU QUE, malgré le fait que la Ville n’est pas responsable des services de collecte, de ré-acheminement et d’élimination des déchets provenant du secteur ICI, la récente décision du Conseil d’offrir des services de collecte et de ré-acheminement des déchets aux petites entreprises dans le cadre du Programme des sacs jaunes constitue un premier pas vers la réduction de la nécessité d’utiliser les décharges pour ce secteur;

ATTENDU QUE le Plan directeur de la gestion intégrée des déchets de la Ville donne lieu à des efforts soutenus pour élaborer des initiatives permettant de maximiser le ré-acheminement des déchets et de minimiser l’utilisation des décharges pour ce secteur, comme la stratégie de ré-acheminement des déchets résidentiels et les programmes d’éducation et de communication;

ATTENDU QUE la Ville procédera à un examen des technologies nouvelles par le biais d’une demande de déclaration d’intérêt qui sera publiée au mois de juin 2006 et que les résultats de cet examen devraient être soumis au Comité à l’automne de 2006;

ATTENDU QUE l’on procède également à l’examen de la pertinence de l’étude de caractérisation des déchets effectuée en 2000 pour les secteurs résidentiels et ICI;

ATTENDU QUE cet examen aidera la Ville à choisir des technologies de rechange et à établir les besoins connexes en ressources humaines et financières, dans le cadre de l’établissement du budget de 2007;

IL EST RÉSOLU que le Conseil :

1. Ordonne que la demande de déclaration d’intérêt donne lieu à un examen approfondi de l’ensemble de technologies permettant de gérer à la fois les déchets résidentiels et ceux du secteur ICI;

2. Revoie son Plan directeur de la gestion intégrée des déchets dans le but d’élaborer des stratégies globales et panmunicipales pour la gestion des déchets résidentiels et de ceux du secteur ICI;

a) Cette opération donnera lieu à l’examen de questions telles que la gestion des déchets du secteur ICI; des services exploités par la municipalité qui font concurrence aux décharges privées ou qui les remplacent, tant pour les déchets résidentiels que pour ceux du secteur ICI; des exigences réglementaires; des programmes de recyclage, des mesures de ré-acheminement, des solutions de rechange à l’élimination des déchets, des systèmes de production d’énergie à partir des déchets et des décharges écologiquement durables, ainsi qu’à la mise en œuvre d’un processus permettant d’assurer la mise à jour régulière du Plan afin qu’il tienne compte des renseignements découlant des initiatives mises à l’essai ou adoptées par d’autres municipalités de l’Ontario et d’ailleurs;

b) Cette opération devra se réaliser de façon accélérée à même des crédits devant provenir du Fonds de réserve pour la compensation des déchets solides en 2006.

3. Demande officiellement à la société Waste Management de tenir compte des efforts constants que déploie la Ville pour combler ses besoins en matière de gestion des déchets;

4. Demande officiellement à la société Waste Services Inc., qui est en train d’établir le cadre de référence d’une évaluation environnementale devant porter sur l’accroissement de la capacité de sa décharge du chemin Navan, de tenir compte des efforts constants que déploie la Ville pour combler ses besoins en matière de gestion des déchets;

5. Porte la présente résolution à la connaissance du premier ministre et de la ministre de l’Environnement de l’Ontario, des députés provinciaux de la région d’Ottawa, de l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario et du personnel compétent du ministère de l’Environnement de l’Ontario.

MOTION 5

ATTENDU QUE, après avoir reconnu qu’un problème de gestion des déchets se dessinait à l’horizon, les gouvernements ontariens ont, à la fin des années 1980 et au début des années 1990, adopté divers règlements, politiques et programmes de financement nt afin d’assurer la mise en place et le développement du ré-acheminement des déchets, y compris la Loi de 2002 sur le ré-acheminement des déchets;

ATTENDU QUE, en juin 2004, le ministère de l’Environnement de l’Ontario a publié un document de travail et tenu des séances de consultation publique sur la façon d’atteindre, à l’échelle de la province, un taux de ré-acheminement des déchets de 60 p. 100, et que des discussions approfondies ont eu lieu sur plusieurs sujets clés, comme l’accélération du compostage centralisé des déchets résidentiels et la possibilité d’interdire progressivement l’élimination de certaines matières organiques et recyclables importantes; le renouvellement de l’engagement envers le ré-acheminement des déchets issus du secteur institutionnel, commercial et industriel (ICI); la réduction de l’emballage et l’augmentation du contenu en matières recyclées des produits et des emballages; la recherche de nouvelles techniques de ré-acheminement des déchets; et la mise en place d’un système provincial de contrôle des déchets;

ATTENDU QUE, en dépit de ces efforts, le leadership exercé par le gouvernement provincial a diminué ces dernières années, à un point tel que, en janvier 2005, l’Ontario Waste Management Association présentait un rapport intitulé The Private Sector ICI Waste Management System in Ontario (Le système de gestion des déchets ICI par le secteur privé en Ontario) et que, en décembre de la même année, l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario soumettait une « proposition de stratégie provinciale intégrée de gestion des déchets »;

ATTENDU QUE le gouvernement provincial possède les pouvoirs et la capacité de réglementation nécessaires pour influer directement sur les taux de ré-acheminement et diminuer la dépendance à l’égard des décharges, et qu’il n’a pris aucune mesure concrète pour obliger le secteur ICI à atteindre l’objectif de ré-acheminement de 60 p. 100 des déchets;

IL EST RÉSOLU que le Conseil approuve ce qui suit :

1. Le personnel de la Ville accélérera l’examen des possibilités et mandats actuels en matière de réglementation, de contrôle, de ré-acheminement et de prestation de services afin de favoriser les efforts de ré-acheminement dans le secteur ICI, et fera rapport au Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement au cours de l’hiver 2006-2007;

2. Le gouvernement provincial sera invité à intensifier l’application de la réglementation existante, comme les vérifications des déchets et les plans de travail pour la réduction des déchets (Règlement de l’Ontario 102/94) ainsi que les programmes de séparation à la source des déchets pour le secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel (Règlement de l’Ontario 103/94);

3. Le gouvernement provincial sera invité à former un groupe de travail composé d’intervenants appropriés, dont des représentants de l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario, du Large Urban Mayors Caucus of Ontario, de la Rural Ontario Municipalities Association ainsi que des représentants du secteur ICI, de l’Ontario Waste Management Association et du Conseil du recyclage de l’Ontario, entre autres, dont le mandat consistera à élaborer des stratégies intégrées de gestion des déchets pour différents secteurs de l’Ontario:

4. La présente résolution sera portée à la connaissance du premier ministre et de la ministre de l’Environnement de l’Ontario, des députés provinciaux de la région d’Ottawa, de l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario, du Large Urban Mayors Caucus of Ontario, de la Rural Ontario Municipalities Association (ROMA), de l’Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) et du Conseil du recyclage de l’Ontario (RCO)

MOTION 6

ATTENDU QUE la limite de capacité des décharges existantes et les coûts sociaux, économiques et environnementaux de l’agrandissement des décharges obligent la Ville d’Ottawa et ses citoyens à repenser les stratégies de collecte et d’élimination des déchets; 

ATTENDU QUE le ré-acheminement constitue la solution la plus élémentaire pour la réduction de l’élimination des déchets; 

ATTENDU QUE le gouvernement de l’Ontario a fixé à 60 p. 100 d’ici à 2008 l’objectif de ré-acheminement des déchets; 

ATTENDU QUE dans le secteur des déchets solides municipaux d’origine résidentielle, la Ville d’Ottawa atteindra cet objectif d’ici à 2008;  

ATTENDU QU’il ne semble pas y avoir de stratégie de ré-acheminement des déchets permettant d’atteindre l’objectif fixé par le gouvernement provincial dans le secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel (ICI); 

IL EST RÉSOLU que le Conseil :

(1) enjoigne la Ville d’Ottawa à devenir, en tant qu’institution, un modèle de ré-acheminement des déchets dans le secteur ICI, en se dotant de programmes de ré-acheminement des déchets (et de recyclage) pour ses bureaux, immeubles et installations publiques;

(2) ordonne que les propositions destinées à assurer le début de la mise en œuvre de ces programmes soient élaborées en vue du budget de 2007 et que la mise en œuvre finale ait lieu d’ici à l’adoption du budget de 2008;

(3) demande officiellement à la société Waste Management de tenir compte des efforts constants que déploie la Ville pour combler ses besoins en matière de gestion de déchets;

(4) demande officiellement à la société Waste Services Inc., qui est en train d’établir le cadre de référence d’une évaluation environnementale devant porter sur l’accroissement de la capacité de sa décharge du chemin Navan, de tenir compte des efforts constants que déploie la Ville pour combler ses besoins en matière de gestion de déchets;

(5) porte la présente résolution à la connaissance du premier ministre et de la ministre de l’Environnement de l’Ontario, des députés provinciaux de la région d’Ottawa, de l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario et du personnel compétent du ministère de l’Environnement de l’Ontario.

Documentation

1. A/Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services report dated 15 May 2006 (ACS2006-PWS-UTL-0011).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, Planning and Environment Committee, 23 May 2006.

3. The following documents are held on file with the City Clerk:

(a) Response of the Community to the Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Proposal of Waste Management of Canada Corporation (dated January 12, 2006) – Volumes I through IV (dated May 12, 2006).

(b) Comments from the Stittsville Village Association to Waste Management of Canada Inc., in response to the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Assessment to Expand the Operation at the Carp Road Landfill Site.

(c) Alternatives to Landfill for Waste Disposal in the City of Ottawa, a Discussion Paper from Ottawa Landfill Watch.org dated May 2006.

(d) Submission dated May 23, 2006 from the Environmental Advisory Committee of the City of Ottawa on the Terms of Reference for the Proposed Expansion of Carp Road Landfill.

(e) Submission dated May 23, 2006 from Mr. David Jenkins, resident of Stittsville, in opposition to the expansion.

(f) Submission dated May 23, 2006 from Mr. Phil Sweetnam, resident of Stittsville, transmitting comments from the Mississippi Valley Conservation Board of Directors.

(g) Remarks by Mr. P. M. Koch, Environmental Advisory Committee member (23 May 2006).

(h) Constituents Correspondence List containing the names of 128 individuals having lodged a Formal Complaint against the Expansion of the Carp Road Landfill (as at 8 June 2006).

(i) Constituents Correspondence List containing the names of 504 individuals who are opposed to the Draft Terms of Reference (as at 8 June 2006).

(j) Correspondence dated May 25, 2006 from Mr. Robert Gregory,
President, March Rural Community Association.

(k) Comment Sheet submitted on 23 May 2006 by Christine Third, a resident of Stittsville, opposed to the Carp Road Landfill Expansion.

(l) Comment Sheet submitted on 23 May 2006 by N. Nash, a resident of Amberlakes Drive, Stittsville, in support of the Motions from Councillor Peggy Feltmate.

Report to/Rapport au:

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

15 May 2006 / le 15 mai 2006

Submitted by/Soumis par : R.G. Hewitt,

Acting Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjoint par intérimaire

Public Works and Services/Services et Travaux publics

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Kenneth J. Brothers, Director/Directeur

Utility Services Branch/Services publics

(613) 580-2424 x 22609, ken.brothers@ottawa.ca

Wards 4, 5, and 6

Ref N°: ACS2006-PWS-UTL-0011

SUBJECT:	Comments on Environmental Assessment (EA) Draft Terms of Reference released by Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the Carp Road Waste Management Facility
OBJET :	commentaires sur le cadre de référence préliminaire de l’évaluation environnementale (EE) publié par Waste Management of Canada Corporation pour l’installation de gestion des déchets du chemin Carp

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council endorse the comments contained in Attachment 1 as the City’s comments on Waste Management of Canada Corporation’s Environmental Assessment Draft Terms of Reference for the Carp Road Waste Management Facility, and direct staff to forward them to the Ministry of the Environment and Waste Management of Canada Corporation for consideration.

RECOMMENDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil municipal de considérer les commentaires inclus dans l’annexe 1 comme les commentaires de la Ville sur le cadre de référence préliminaire de l’évaluation environnementale faite par l’entreprise Waste Management of Canada pour l’installation de gestion des déchets du chemin Carp et ordonne au personnel de les acheminer au ministère de l’Environnement et à l’entreprise Waste Management of Canada pour qu’ils les étudient.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 23 March 2006, Council adopted several motions at a Special Council meeting respecting the Carp Road landfill operated by Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) and the Environmental Assessment (EA) process conducted to date.

Further to that meeting, staff has conducted a critical assessment of the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) document released by WM and provided the comments that are contained in Attachment 1.

Staff’s assessment of the draft ToR document, which is required as the first step to complete a full EA, is that it is generally deficient as to the purpose, rationale and alternatives to the landfill expansion proposal. In addition, the document needs to be extensively revised to provide clarity as to the proposal, the plans for evaluation of alternatives and alternative methods and ensure that a commitment to an overall EA monitoring strategy is undertaken. Complete supporting documentation should be provided as well as a commitment to a more extensive consultation process through the formation of Public Liaison/Advisory, Technical Advisory and Community Liaison/Communications Committees.

WM has provided a response (Attachment 2) to the City’s concerns as set out in its 23 March Council motions and has indicated where it will be revising the document. To date, however, WM has not agreed to extend their 12 May 2006 deadline for receipt of comments to the draft ToR and has indicated that they will be submitting their final ToR to the MOE in June 2006.

The City’s comments will be forwarded to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and WM following the Council meeting of 14 June 2006.

Staff will be meeting with WM prior to the submission of their ToR to the MOE. Both the public and the City will have an additional opportunity to provide comments on the final ToR upon posting of the document to the Environmental Registry. In addition, the EA for the landfill expansion is expected to be a multi-year process with several statutory and non-statutory opportunities to conduct public consultation and provide comments.

In terms of the City’s ongoing work, implementation of the IWMMP has the complementary aim of conserving landfill capacity for the long-term. It is important to appreciate that the timeline to get new technologies on-line and implemented are comparable to the establishment of new landfills or additional landfill waste capacity. In spite of waste reduction efforts and an extensive waste diversion strategy, local landfill capacity will be required in the short and medium terms for management of residual waste. To continue on its efforts to achieve a 60% waste diversion target, staff will be proceeding with a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) for technologies regarding source separated organics and residual solid waste, and a report on the results of this will be brought back in the fall of 2006.

RÉSUMÉ

À la réunion extraordinaire du Conseil le 23 mars 2006, ce dernier a adopté plusieurs motions en ce qui a trait au site d’enfouissement du chemin Carp géré par l’entreprise Waste Management of Canada (Waste Management) et de l’évaluation environnementale (ÉE) effectuée jusqu’à présent.

À la suite de cette réunion, les employés ont effectué une évaluation critique du document sur le projet de mandat (cadre de référence) publié par Waste Management et ajouté les commentaires inclus à l’annexe 1.

L’évaluation du document par les employés, qui est requise comme première étape pour terminer une ÉE complète, indique qu’il est généralement insuffisant sur le plan des buts, des motifs et des possibilités de la proposition de l’expansion du site d’enfouissement. De plus, il faut réviser le document attentivement pour clarifier la proposition, les plans d’évaluation des choix et des méthodes de rechange, et faire en sorte qu’il y ait un engagement envers une stratégie de suivi complète de l’ÉE complète. Il faut fournir une documentation exhaustive à l’appui ainsi qu’un engagement envers un processus de consultation plus complet en créant un comité de liaison avec le public ou de consultations, un comité consultatif technique et de communications et de liaison avec la collectivité.

Waste Management a répondu (annexe 2) aux inquiétudes de la Ville qui figuraient dans les motions du Conseil du 23 mars et il a indiqué qu’il réévaluera le document. Par contre, jusqu’ici, Waste Management n’a pas accepté de repousser la date d’échéance du 12 mai 2006 pour l’acceptation des commentaires sur le projet du cadre de référence et il a indiqué qu’il enverra son cadre de référence final au ministère de l’Environnement de l’Ontario en juin 2006.

Les commentaires de la Ville seront envoyés au ministère de l’Environnement (MEO) ainsi qu’à Waste Management après la réunion du Conseil le 14 juin 2006.

Le personnel rencontrera Waste Management avant l’envoi de son cadre de référence au MEO. Le public et la Ville auront une occasion de plus pour faire part de leurs commentaires sur le dernier cadre de référence avant que le document soit inscrit au Registre environnemental. De plus, l’ÉE sur l’expansion du site d’enfouissement devrait durer plusieurs années, et il s’agira d’un processus ponctué de plusieurs possibilités législatives et non législatives d’effectuer des consultations publiques et de fournir des commentaires.

Pour ce qui est des travaux en cours de la Ville, la mise en œuvre du PDGID a pour but complémentaire de conserver le site d’enfouissement à long terme. Il importe d’apprécier le fait que les délais pour obtenir de nouvelles technologies en ligne et les mettre en service sont comparables à l’aménagement de nouveaux sites d’enfouissement ou aux travaux destinés à renforcer la capacité de sites d’enfouissement déjà aménagés. Malgré les effets visant à réduire les déchets et la stratégie complète de réorientation des déchets, il faudra aménager des sites d’enfouissement locaux à court et à moyen terme pour la gestion des déchets domestiques.

Afin de poursuivre son programme de collecte de matières organiques et afin de réacheminer 60 % de ses déchets selon l’objectif fixé, les employés prépareront une demande d’expressions d’intérêt (DEI) pour les technologies afin de compléter le programme de collecte de matières organiques séparées à la source et des déchets solides résiduels. Un rapport des résultats sera présenté à l’automne 2006.

BACKGROUND

On 12 January 2006, Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) released a draft Environmental Assessment - Terms of Reference (ToR) document for public comment. The proposal under the ToR is for an expansion of WM’s Ottawa facility, located on Carp Road at Highway 417, to provide additional recycling, landfilling and composting capacity at the existing landfill facility. At the current filling rates and approved volumetric capacity, WM estimates that their Ottawa facility has only four years of remaining use. The ToR document is the first in a series of steps to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA).

On 7 February 2006, WM held a public information session/open house at the West Carleton Centre. At that time, they requested that public comments on the draft ToR be submitted by 20 March 2006. On 21 February 2006, following a request from staff, WM advised that they would support a maximum extension for receipt of comments to 30 April 2006. At the request of Councillor Stavinga, another community information session was held on 1 March 2006 at Ecole Jean-Paul II in Stittsville. This meeting was attended by over 1200 persons. Following a meeting with staff and Councillor Stavinga, WM agreed to the Councillor’s request to further extend the comment deadline to 12 May 2006. On 23 March 2006, Council adopted several motions at a Special Council meeting respecting the Carp Road landfill and the Environmental Assessment (EA) process conducted to date. This report responds to the action requested in Motion 55/1.

On 28 March 2006, Councillors El-Chantiry, Feltmate and Stavinga held a workshop regarding WM’s draft ToR, attended by approximately 200 members of the public.

A further request was made to WM to extend their deadline for comment to the draft ToR, but WM refused to do so. Recognizing the timelines required to present a staff report to Committee and Council, a letter dated 24 April 2006, was sent to WM by the City Manager confirming the expected schedule of consideration of a staff report on this issue. Attached to the letter was a preliminary summary of concerns regarding the draft ToR. This information was also copied to the Ministry of Environment.

Provincial Direction on Waste Management and Environmental Assessment (EA) Policy

Recognizing a looming waste management problem, Ontario governments in the late 1980s and early 1990s introduced a variety of policies, regulations and funding programs to introduce, then develop and enhance waste diversion, including the Waste Diversion Act, 2002. In June 2004, the MOE released a Discussion Paper and conducted public consultation sessions on how to achieve the Provincial-wide goal of 60% waste diversion with extensive discussions on several key topics, such as:

· Accelerating centralized composting for residential waste and the feasibility of phasing-in a ban on disposal of key organics and recyclable materials;

· Renewing commitment on ICI waste diversion;

· Reducing packaging and increasing the recycled content in products and packaging;

· Finding new waste diversion technologies; and

· Initiating a Province wide monitoring system for waste.

Despite these efforts, Provincial leadership has diminished in recent years, to the extent that in December 2005, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario submitted a “Proposal for a Provincial Integrated Waste Management Strategy”. In particular the Province has not taken any concrete action directing the ICI sector to meet the 60% diversion goal, nor has it progressed beyond guidelines for diversion relating to municipal solid waste.

In terms of Environmental Assessment (EA) policy, an extensive three-year litigation action concerning the expansion of the Richmond Landfill, finally confirmed the Minister’s authority to approve focused EAs. In late 2004-2005, the Minister of the Environment appointed an expert panel to review and improve the EA framework. Despite receiving several recommendations, the Provincial Government has not acted on the recommendations or announced any new initiatives during the past year. Thus, the EA to be completed for Waste Management’s Carp Road Waste Management Facility (WMF) will proceed under the current EA process discussed below.

Environmental Assessment Process

The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) provides for the protection, conservation and wise management of Ontario’s environment by creating an accountable, logical and clear process of provincial decision-making with significant opportunity for public review and input. The Act promotes environmental planning by requiring the “proponent” of an “undertaking”, such as a landfill expansion proposal, to obtain approval of that undertaking by the Minister of Environment prior to proceeding with the implementation of any significant works.

In developing this EA process, the Province has determined the various steps of the process, including the opportunities for public input and comment and the Minister’s decision-making requirements. It is important to remember that a proponent, such as WM, embarks on the EA process with the ultimate approval authority being the Minister of Environment. As such, the City – as host municipality – is one key stakeholder amongst other stakeholders and will provide its comments into the EA process to both WM and the Minister of Environment during the EA process.

The EA process and timelines are graphically summarized in the following flow chart.

Time Lines in the Environmental Assessment Process

ToR Preparation

Regulated Time Lines

Anticipated Time Lines ⁽¹⁾

Proponent prepares Terms of Reference (ToR) and completes mandatory public consultation

No Time Lines

12 - 52 Weeks

ToR Review and Approval

• Proponent submits proposed ToR
• Government/Public Review (mandatory

30 day review)
• EAAB Analysis
• Minister's Decision

12 Weeks

12 - 24 Weeks

EA Preparation

Proponent prepares EA and carries out mandatory public consultation

No Time Lines

52 - 260 Weeks

Proponent submits EA*

Public Notice

EA Review & Approval

Government/Public Review of EA*

7 Weeks

7 Weeks

EA Review/Notice of Completion *

5 Weeks

5 Weeks

Final Public Comment Period

5 Weeks

5 Weeks

• Project Officer evaluates submissions,
negotiates conditions and finalizes
recommendations to Minister
• Minister's Decision

13 Weeks

13 Weeks

Approve/Deny

Refer to Hearing

Minister Sets Time Lines

24 - 52 Weeks

Refer to Mediation

* Director may issue Deficiency Statement

SOURCE:

A Guide to Preparing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments (Draft), Ministry of the Environment, December 15, 2000

Current stage of Ottawa WMF EA

Public Consultation

⁽¹⁾ Subject to Ministerial extension based on need to resolve outstanding issues.

As noted on the graphic, WM is at the first stage of developing a draft Terms of Reference (ToR) in the current EA process for the Carp Road Waste Management Facility (WMF), which will be submitted to the MOE for approval.

Terms of Reference Content

The ToR sets out WM’s plan for addressing the legislated requirements of the EAA. The ToR outlines the type of work that WM considers necessary to study and address the environmental issues that have been identified and to prepare the EA document detailing the investigation of environmental issues.

In general, a ToR identifies the purpose of the proposal, provides a general description of both the proposal and the environment that may be potentially affected by the landfill expansion and activities, outlines the alternatives that will be considered in the EA and identifies the broad issues that need to be assessed. The ToR is not intended to examine in detail the potential environmental impacts, nor is it intended to identify or develop any or all mitigation requirements. The EA process then proceeds to examine and assess all aspects of the undertaking identified in the approved ToR.

The ToR should also include a description of the consultation that will take place during the preparation of the EA.

A complete ToR submission has four components:

· a transmittal letter to the MOE Project Officer that summarizes the proposed undertaking and that outlines the reasons that the proposed ToR should be approved;

· the proposed ToR;

· a consultation record that outlines the public consultation carried out during the ToR preparation; and

· supporting documentation as required.

The following information is required to be included in the proposed ToR by the applicant:

· identification of the proponent (WM);

· explanation of the purpose of the proposal (landfill expansion in this case);

· description of the proposal;

· alternatives to the undertaking and alternative methods of carrying out a proposal;

· description of the existing environment and potential effects;

· identification of methods that will be used to assess the potential environmental impacts and evaluate the results of any studies, research, surveys or tests that will be undertaken during preparation of the EA;

· monitoring strategy and schedule;

· EA consultation plan reflecting the input received from the public, agencies, stakeholders, First Nations and interested parties;

· flexibility in the ToR to accommodate new circumstances; and

· other approvals required and related issues.

Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Review Process

Two weeks prior to submission, WM will submit a completed Terms of Reference Summary form to allow the Summary to be posted on the MOE website. WM must also publish a notice in a place or places) appropriate to the community to inform the public that a ToR has been submitted for the proposed undertaking. The notice will advise the public of where the submission can be reviewed and will invite comments to the Minister during the 30-day review period. WM is not yet at this step in the process.

Once public notices have been prepared, WM will formally submit the ToR package to the MOE. In both the transmittal letter for the submission package and in the ToR, WM should note under which clause of the EAA the ToR is being submitted (s.6(2)(a), (b) or (c)) to indicate whether the company is undertaking a full or focused EA.

The Minister has three options regarding ToR approval: The Minister may approve the ToR, approve the ToR with Ministerial modifications, or refuse the ToR. The Minister will only approve of the ToR “if the Minister is satisfied that an environmental assessment prepared in accordance with them will be consistent with the purpose of this Act and with the public interest”. Should there remain significant issues, the Minister may decide to refer them to mediation throughout the ToR preparation and evaluation process.

Once the proposed ToR is formally submitted to the MOE, however, it is subject to the deadlines regulation (O.Reg. 616/98), which establishes the timing of reviews and decisions. The Minister must make a decision about the proposed ToR within twelve (12) weeks of the commencement of regulated timelines. While the Minister will likely make every effort to meet the deadlines prescribed in the regulation, the Minister’s decision is not invalid if the decision was not made before the applicable deadline. There are also provisions within the EAA and the deadlines regulation that adjust the deadlines in the event of an amendment to the proposed ToR by the proponent, or if any matter is referred to mediation. The Director of the EAAB may also choose to extend the approval deadlines if extraordinary circumstances exist to justify the extension.

An approved ToR represents an agreement between WM and the Minister about the work that is required in the EA to determine the potential impacts of the landfill expansion proposal and its alternatives on the environment. Although the ToR document is intended to be comprehensive, in some cases the results of the work undertaken may indicate that additional work is required to fully assess the applicant’s proposal.

The approved ToR will play a significant role in the Minister’s decision about the approval of the EA to proceed with the proposal. If an EA document does not meet the commitments made in the approved ToR, the Minister may choose to deny the application to proceed.

Environmental Assessment Phase

Following approval of the ToR, WM will carry out the actual environmental assessment itself. This step will involve conducting the various studies and assessments that have been identified as necessary assessments in the EA Terms of Reference.

Once a ToR has received Ministry approval, it is appropriate for the proponent to facilitate the creation of various review teams such as a government review team (GRT), public advisory and technical advisory committees etc. to help ensure that potential issues are identified and resolved.

This step of the assessment is the longest in duration as it involves the preparation of the many studies and may involve consultation at the discretion of WM.

Submission of the EA Document

WM is required to give public notice of their formal submission of its EA document. Once the above notice has been given, the public has a minimum of thirty (30) days to make a written submission to the MOE regarding the proposal, the EA and the MOE review. During this time, anyone, including WM, may make a written request to the Minister suggesting:

· what issues are outstanding;

· how these might be resolved through specific conditions of approval; and

· whether a hearing should be held by the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT).

Provincial Review and Decision Making Process

The EAAB coordinates a review of the document soliciting comments from various participating committee members, First Nations and the public. The MOE review documents any shortcomings identified and assesses how the requirements of the EAA have been addressed. As well, the MOE review will also identify whether the preparation of the EA document has been carried out in accordance with the approved ToR.

Ultimately, the Minister will decide whether to:

· refer all or part of the matter to the ERT for a hearing, or for a decision;

· refer the EA or a particular issue to mediation; or

· approve the proposed undertaking and any conditions of the approval.

If a hearing is not required, the Minister may give approval or deny approval. Cabinet must ratify the Minister's decision.

If the Minister refers all or a portion of an application for a hearing, the ERT must schedule and provide notification of the public hearing. The ERT may approve or refuse approval of the proposal. A decision by the ERT comes into effect twenty-eight (28) days after it is issued, unless the Minister, with Cabinet approval, varies the decision or requires the ERT to hold a new hearing.

The Deadlines Regulation provides for the Minister to make a decision on an EA submission with thirty (30) weeks of submission to the MOE.

A current full EA process from start to finish, including preparation and submission of a ToR and EA documentation for a waste management facility expansion proposal - assuming no major public opposition - usually proceeds over a three to four year timeframe.

Opportunities for Public Input

Consultation is key to the EA planning framework outlined by the EAA. The Act requires public notice of the ToR, notice to the Clerk of a municipality, notice to other persons, public inspection, approval, mediation, etc. This obligation is interpreted in detail in the draft MOE document entitled: “Guideline on Consultation in the Environmental Assessment Process” (December 2000). Under this Guideline, WM must prepare a consultation program tailored to its proposed undertaking and other project-specific conditions.

In essence, however, with regard to consultation in the ToR and EA processes, the MOE strongly recommends that:

· Early initiation of the consultation process including preliminary consultations with MOE before the proposed ToR are prepared to clarify objectives, anticipated timelines, proposed approach to the ToR and EA, consultation plans, etc.

· A process that will be as complete as reasonably possible by including all individuals, agencies, groups and other bodies that may have an interest in the proposal.

· Ensuring that the consultation process is open to all potentially affected or interested parties. This includes consultation in both official languages of Canada, as required by law, policy and/or by circumstance, and in other languages as circumstances dictate.

· Consultation must be transparent by documenting the consultation process that is carried out for the development of the EA so that the process can be understood and traced.

· The process must be responsive by providing opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the development of the EA and responding to comments received in a timely manner.

· The consultation must be meaningful by identifying how comments and concerns have been considered throughout the EA process.

· Flexibility in the process to allow for response to new issues that may emerge as the EA proceeds.

In addition to these requirements, due to recent case law, the MOE has in recent months begun to implement a requirement for more comprehensive consultations with First Nations in the EA process. The Provincial Crown (in this case, the MOE) will carry out its own verification and confirmation of any First Nations consultation work completed by WM as part of the EA review process, and may conduct additional consultation with First Nations as it sees fit.

DISCUSSION

Comments on WM’s Draft ToR

Staff conducted a thorough assessment of the draft ToR document released by WM. This assessment is a critical component in the City’s review of the “environmental soundness” of WM’s landfill expansion proposal. The review has included comments from Councillors, residents, and Public Health in addition to those of the Public Works and Services Department. The assessment has been conducted from a technical and objective perspective to ensure that the application addresses the full spectrum issues of environmental, social and economic sensitivity, community partnerships and legislative and regulatory requirements.

Many landfill expansion proposals conducted in Ontario have proceded as focused or scoped EA’s. WM has stated that its intent to conduct a full EA; however, in many respects the draft ToR reads as a scoped or focused EA. Staff met with WM representatives on three occasions to discuss the contents of the draft ToR and Council’s initial motion of 23 March 2006. At each juncture, WM confirmed that it is their intention to conduct a full EA and that they will be reviewing the draft ToR with the EAAB following the submission of all public comments. This fundamental disconnect with its stated purpose has clouded the overall acceptability of the document and requires revision by WM. The City, as indicated in Motion 55/1, is supportive of WM’s stated intent of conducting a full environmental assessment of the Carp Road Landfill Expansion, particularly as it is not evident that WM has undertaken any preliminary investigations or evaluations which would support undertaking a scoped EA to meet MOE requirements.

Staff’s detailed comments on WM’s draft ToR for Committee consideration and Council approval are provided in Attachment 1. The comments are formatted to coincide with WM’s ToR document, section by section.

Based on the current document, the City’s assessment is that WM has not met the requirements of the EA guidelines.

As a key stakeholder in the process and as the host community, the City’s comments and concerns will be given serious weight and consideration by the EAAB of the MOE. However, the ultimate decision making authority for all steps in the EA process rests with Minister of Environment.

WM Response

WM did provide a response to Council’s 23 March 2006 Motion 55/1, and this information is contained in Attachment 2 of this report. This motion contained Council’s request to consider alternatives including emerging technologies and WM have stated that they will give serious consideration to Council’s desire for alternative technologies. WM has now submitted a base map indicating a minimum 3 km radius around their facility that will be considered as part of the detailed studies to support their EA (see Figure 1 attached).

Provincial Response

Following the Council meeting on 23 March 2006, the City Clerk forwarded a letter to the Province requesting that it “…conduct a comparative analysis of the environmental and health impacts of the use of landfill, incineration, and other emerging technologies, and in setting environmental and health guidelines for the use”. The Director of EAAB has responded to this in a letter dated 04 May 2006 indicating that the Province, through its regulations on Landfills and Air Quality standards adequately safeguard the environment, and on this basis has declined to undertake the requested analysis.

Future Steps & EA Timeline

Next Step – City of Ottawa

Following formal consideration and approval of the attached City ’s comments at the 14 June 2006 Council meeting, they will be forwarded to the MOE and WM for consideration in finalizing the ToR.

Staff will continue to follow WM’s progress through the Environmental Assessment process. It is anticipated that staff will regularly bring forward other reports on any other comments through the various stages.

Next Steps - WM

Once all of the public comments are submitted to WM, its consultant will categorize the feedback received according to themes and present the information in a consultation document.

WM has indicated a tentative project timeline that projects the ToR, public consultation results and supporting documents being completed by 19 May 2006 and submission to the MOE in June 2006. The revised ToR will be posted on the Provincial Government’s Environmental Registry to start the mandatory twelve (12) week public and agency review period.

The responsibility to oversee the EA process then shifts to the MOE. The public and technical review agencies may then submit their comments to the MOE for their consideration in assessing the completeness of the ToR application. If the tentative timeline is followed, the Minister’s decision on the ToR will be forthcoming in the fall of 2006. At that point, the Minister’s decision may either approve, approve with modifications or refuse the ToR. If refused, the ToR may be revised and re-submitted. If approved, WM will commence work on the preparation of the EA within the context of the approved ToR. WM will conduct public consultation on the EA and the Ministry will also accept comments on the EA and the Ministry’s review of the EA.

In summary, there are at least three (3) more statutory-mandated opportunities to provide comments to WM (once on the ToR that are submitted and once on the EA) and the MOE (once on the Ministry Review of the EA document) in the EA process.

RELATED INFORMATION

Council’s 23 March 2006 motion included direction “that the staff report being prepared on the issue include a detailed explanation of the City’s plan and timelines to meet Ottawa’s 60% waste diversion target.” In response the following information is provided.

City of Ottawa Integrated Waste Management Master Plan

The City has responded to the guidelines on solid waste management issued by the Province through the Council approved Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP). Currently, it delivers the following broad spectrum of residential solid waste services:

• Collection and disposal of municipal solid waste,
• Diversion of material from landfill through:
• Blue and Black Box recycling programs;
• Leaf and Yard Waste collection;
• Take It Back program;
• Compost Plus organics pilot project; and
• Household Hazardous Waste programs.

In 2005, this resulted in the collection of 319,500 tonnes of residential waste of which 108,949 tonnes was diverted. The overall residential solid waste diversion from landfill for the City is 34%.

From information staff have been able to collect from private waste collection and landfill contractors over twice as much solid waste was collected from the ICI sector, with only 17.5% of that diverted from landfill. These services are provided directly to local businesses, employers and service providers through private contractors.

While the City is not responsible for industrial, commercial or institutional (ICI) waste collection, diversion and disposal services, Council’s recent decision to offer waste collection and diversion service to the small business community through the Yellow Bag program, does provide a segment of the ICI community with enhanced options for diversion from the waste stream.

In accordance with the IWMMP, staff has continued to develop the following activities to maximize waste diversion and minimize landfill capacity consumption:

Education and Communication Program

q A comprehensive education and waste diversion promotion campaign is planned to commence this spring. It is expected that Councillors will play an integral role in this education campaign.

q A report is in development for the new solid waste collection and management by-law. Authority for reduced residential garbage bag limits will be included as part of the new by-law.

Residential Waste Diversion Strategy

q In November 2005, Council approved city-wide contracts with deployment options for the residential organics composting program for potential implementation in 2008 to further increase diversion and reduce requirements for landfill disposal.

q A Request for Qualifications for organics processing of the City’s source separated organics and marketing of any resulting products was released for private sector submissions. Staff will proceed with the issuance of a Request for Proposals and report to Committee and Council on the outcomes in 2007.

New and Emerging Technologies

q A Request for Expression of Interest (REOI) for new technologies pertaining both to the handling of source separated organics and the residual solid waste stream is undergoing final revision and is to be issued in June 2006. Staff will provide a summary review of this Alternative Technologies REIO to Committee later this year.

q Staff plan to undertake an update of the Waste Characterization study for the residential and ICI sectors with the information to be made available to both the public and private sectors. This exercise will assist the City in potential selection of alternative technologies and as such, financial and staffing requirements will be identified as part of the 2007 Budget process.

Plasco Waste to Energy Project

q The Plasco evaluation project is a prime example of Council placing Ottawa in a leadership position in exploring alternative waste disposal technologies. The proposal involves development and operation of an evaluation facility using plasma gasification technology for processing approximately 75 tonnes of municipal solid waste per day and converting the waste into energy. Current plans are that this facility will begin handling waste in late fall 2006.

Energy Recovery Strategy

q The City's Nepean and Trail Road Landfill sites have the ability to produce at least 3,500 cubic feet per minute of landfill gas. This valuable energy source will power a 5MW (sufficient energy to serve 4,000 to 5,000 homes) electrical cogeneration plant. The project is on schedule to commence electrical production by August 2006 with a goal of full-scale implementation set for January 2007.

ICI Sector

q Staff will explore policy options with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on how the Province needs to become more involved in diverting waste from the ICI sector.

q Staff will also be reviewing regulatory involvement, monitoring, diversion and service delivery opportunities and mandates with the Legal and Financial Services Branches to encourage diversion efforts within the local ICI sector.

Landfill Strategy

Even with all the above noted actions, there will still be significant amounts of solid waste requiring disposal. Currently each of the existing landfill sites is an important component of the City’s IWMMP. In fact, the IWMMP relies upon being able to dispose of approximately 30% of the City’s residential solid waste at facilities other than the Trail Road Landfill. If capacity at one site is reduced or removed, then a corresponding pressure for more landfill is placed on other existing sites.

Based on the current environmental framework in Ontario, it takes between 7 to 11 years through technical studies, public consultations and MOE approval to establish a new landfill site or new disposal capacity. The last approval of a new major landfill site in Ontario was in 1997 (the privately-owned Laflèche facility in Moose Creek) that took 16 years from concept to final approval. Alternative technologies also require many years of study, assessment, construction and commissioning similar to the time required for a new landfill disposal capacity.

In summary, staff are currently or will in the immediate future, undertake a variety of measures as noted above, to minimize the residual solid waste stream and become more effective at identifying resource potential. With specific reference to the attainment of 60% diversion, it is anticipated that the comprehensive education and communication program, in conjunction with reduced bag limits and source separated organics program implementations, will enable the City to reach our diversion target by year end 2008.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The EAA sets forth a broad planning framework to allow for the implementation of major proposals, such as this one pertaining to Waste Management of Canada Corporation’s Landfill Expansion. Through the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, it is expected that an objective, reproducible, transparent and thorough process will be followed in consideration of the proposal at hand.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

Residential, industrial, commercial and institutional waste from both rural and urban areas is accepted at the Carp Road Landfill.

CONSULTATION/PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

WM conducted the mandatory public meeting on their draft ToR on 7 February 2006. They held a second public meeting at the request of Councillor Stavinga on 1 March 2006.

Council held a special meeting on 23 March 2006 to consider and approved Motion 55/1 documenting the City’s concerns with the draft ToR. At this meeting Council also adopted Motion 55/11 to provide local groups with funding to allow them to participate technically in the Environmental Assessment process. These agreements are now in place and will allow these groups to provide meaningful, knowledgeable input on these important initiatives.

The area Councillors (El Chantiry, Feltmate and Stavinga) hosted a public meeting on 28 March 2006 to discuss alternative technologies.

Councillors and staff have received many emails from members of the public on this issue. These emails have been assembled, printed and filed with the Committee Secretariat as part of their placement on the public record. Staff reviewed public submissions and those provided within the Community Action Forums conducted to date and have integrated relevant ToR comments in staff’s detailed comments, where appropriate.

Public Works and Services staff received and included comments from Public Health in the detailed comments found at Attachment 1.

Staff have also met with WM representatives on three occasions and exchanged correspondence discussing their draft ToR and timelines. WM have stated their willingness to meet with City staff prior to finalizing the ToR for submission to the MOE however intends to submit the final ToR directly to the Ministry of the Environment.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications to the City with respect to WM’s proposed ToR. The City anticipates future review work will consume staff time and external consulting services, to be determined.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Attachment 1 - Staff Comments on WM EA draft ToR – 1 May 2006

Attachment 2 - Response to Ottawa City Council and Standing Committee Motion No. 55/1

Re: Carp Road Landfill – WM Ottawa WMF EA – 7 April 2006

Attachment 3 - Figure 1 Base Map of 3 km radius around WM Ottawa WMF

DISPOSITION

1. Public Works and Services staff to forward Attachment 1 to WM of Canada Corporation and to John McCauley, Gartner Lee Limited, Suite 1603, 275 Slater Street, Ottawa ON K1P 5H9, ottawalandfillea@gartnerlee.com.

2. Public Works and Services staff to forward this Report to the Ministry of Environment – Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, attention Hayley Berlin, Project Officer, Environmental Assessment Project Co-ordination Section, 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, ON M4V 1L5, (416) 314-7106, Hayley.Berlin@ene.gov.on.ca.

3. Public Works and Services staff will continue to monitor the progress of this EA and bring back reports as appropriate.

ATTACHMENT 1

Staff Comments on Waste Management Environmental Assessment Draft Term of Reference (ToR) – 1 May 2006

Document Reference	Specific Comments
1. Introduction	· A complete copy of Certificate of Approval No. A461002 should be included as Supporting Documentation to the ToR. Also, the compliance status of the current waste management operation relative to Certificate of Approval No. A461002 and any other provincial, municipal or federal permits, approvals and/or agreements should be reviewed and discussed in the Supporting Documentation section.
3. Purpose of the Proposed Undertaking	· It is stated on page 5, first paragraph, “The Ottawa WMF has historically supplied disposal capacity for residential waste generated within, and managed by, the City of Ottawa. The City has identified this disposal capacity as an integral component of its waste management system in both their Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (Phase One) and its recent environmental assessment approval for the expansion of the City’s Trail Road Landfill”. Excerpts from these two references supporting these statements should be included in the ToR Supporting Documentation section. · The draft ToR states on page 1, first paragraph that “WM is preparing an EA to provide additional disposal capacity at its Ottawa WMF…” The draft ToR also states on page 4, last paragraph, that “The purpose of the proposed undertaking is to provide additional disposal capacity at the WM Ottawa WMF, in order to allow WM to continue to manage its current commercial interests and growth of its business operations”. It is clear from the above statements that the intent of WM is to expand the currently approved capacity of the Ottawa WMF either through expansion of the existing landfill and/or expansion of the existing landfill to adjoining lands. This approach, which in essence predetermines the undertaking as a business decision pertaining to “a major commercial or business enterprise or activity or a proposal, plan or program in respect of a major commercial or business enterprise or activity of a person or persons” (Section 1(1) of the EAA, page 1, fourth paragraph of the draft ToR), is limited in scope in terms of assessing alternative waste disposal options. · In the first paragraph of page 7, however, the draft ToR states that “WM has decided to proceed with these Terms of Reference in a manner set out in 6(2)(a) of the Act. The ToR will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Subsection 6.1(2) of the Act, as set out below”. Subsection 6.1(2) of the EAA provides for a full EA, which includes, among other things, an assessment of alternatives to the undertaking. The purpose of the undertaking under a full EA scenario is typically described in general terms such as “assess and comparatively evaluate various alternatives for long term management of non-hazardous solid waste”, rather than specific terms such as “provide additional disposal capacity”. The ToR indicates that the EA will be completed in accordance with Subsection 6.1(2) of the EAA, thus, it is expected that the waste proposal will need to be redefined and that a broad range of “alternatives to” the proposal should be included and evaluated. · This section should be expanded to include the discussion relating to the “rationale of the proposal”. As such, the problem (and the work to be done in the EA to confirm it) would be described in its entirety within this section of the report. Reorganizing the material so the purpose of the undertaking and rationale for the undertaking are described in the same section would provide clarity to the reader. The description of the undertaking would then be made in the next section. · The ToR should be specific on how the IWMMP supports the need for the project. Describing the key IWMMP recommendations would provide additional context for the problem. If there are other studies/plans in the market area to support the purpose of the undertaking, they should be referenced as well.
3.2 Opportunity Assessment	· In section 3.2(c) of the draft ToR, WM states “Building on the infrastructure of the existing facility, WM will look at…disposal capacity”. The expression “look at” should be replaced with more definitive language. An assessment of other disposal opportunities in addressing anticipated waste materials increases and any corresponding residual waste impacts on landfill expansion.
5. Description and Rationale for the Proposed Undertaking	· Section 5 of the draft ToR indicates that “The completion of the environmental assessment in accordance with these Terms of Reference will result in the identification of the proposed undertaking”, and further that, “The purpose of the proposed undertaking will be described in accordance with section 6.1(2)(a) of the Act, and a description of the proposed undertaking prepared in accordance with section 6.1(2)(b)(i) of the Act”. However, section 5.1 of the draft ToR states that “The proposed undertaking, to provide additional disposal capacity at the WM Ottawa WMF…”. There appears to be some uncertainty as to what the undertaking is, or should be, at this point in time, and the definition of what constitutes the undertaking should be fully clarified. This comment also applies to the clarification of the work, scope and supporting information for completion of the EA in accordance with subsection 6.1(2) of the EAA. · WM has chosen to undertake a full EA and meet all of the requirements of section 6.1(2). This proposal requires additional onus on WM in completing their EA a comprehensive public participation plan, which has not occurred to date (i.e. stakeholder expectations are very high). We raise this point, as the current focus in the draft ToR on a limited range of alternatives does not meet public expectations. · WM has presented a narrow description of the proposal which is “to provide additional disposal capacity”. The “MOE Guide to Preparing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments” suggests that supporting studies be provided for narrowly defined undertakings. The decision to describe the undertaking narrowly conflicts with WM’s decision to prepare a full EA with the expectations, extensive study and evaluation requirements therein. In the absence of these studies, a broader scope of analysis of options and benefits should be included in this ToR for completeness.
5.1 Description of the Proposed Undertaking	· The rationale for service area expansion to include the Outaouais region is identified as being “in recognition of its importance as part of the Ottawa economic area”. With regard to a proposed service area expansion beyond the currently approved service area under an expanded facility scenario, WM should clearly identify the reasons why waste that is generated in the Outaouais cannot be satisfactorily managed, privately or publicly, in the Province of Quebec. · Similarly, section 5.1 of the draft ToR indicates that “The proposed undertaking, to provide additional disposal capacity at the WM Ottawa WMF, will continue to accept non-hazardous waste generated in the Province of Ontario”, whereas elsewhere in the draft ToR the reference is specifically to “Ottawa” or to “Eastern Ontario”. A clear explanation of what is the intended service area should be provided in the ToR. · The first sentence of the second paragraph reads “The additional disposal capacity at the WMF would occur on lands owned or controlled by WM from time to time (see Figure 2)”, where Figure 2 shows the current property ownership boundary. If WM owns all of the property as noted on Figure 2, why is there a need to describe lands “controlled by WM from time to time” and what is the meaning of the word “controlled”? A figure showing controlled lands not owned by WM that are being considered for additional disposal capacity must be included in the ToR.
5.2 Rationale for the Proposed Undertaking	· A description of WM’s role (operational plan and diversion objectives) in supporting increased waste reduction and diversion should be included in the ToR Supporting Documents. · Rationale and need for expansion size must be justified (e.g. why 18 million metric tonnes?). Growth assumption figures should be evaluated, waste diversion plan for ICI, Construction & Demolition and Residential waste compiled with recycling additions/projections. An ICI Waste Characterization study should be conducted to describe the source landfill materials, focused waste diversion and recycling plans and the residual waste streams anticipated. The growth projections should provide residual landfill volumes and the rationale for growth of each stream. An overall expansion application must provide robust calculation and rationale for the expansion capacity requested. Information should be provided regarding cover material and acceptance and import of contaminated soils, particularly with respect to Certificate of Approval technical amendments for the landfill facility, air, surface and groundwater, leachate and odour effects.
6. Description and Rationale for “Alternatives To” the Undertaking	· Section 6 of the draft ToR indicates that “The EA will consider specific “alternatives to” the WM undertaking”. As written, the draft ToR indicates that the EA will be submitted under subsection 6.1(2) and is not a scoped/focused EA per subsection 6.1(3) with limited waste management alternatives. · “Alternatives to” should consider reclamation/landfill mining process in combination with the other alternatives. · The list of “alternatives to” typically considered for solid waste undertakings include: do nothing, landfill, thermal/combustion technologies, export and increased diversion. Consideration of waste diversion as part of the undertaking should be clarified in this section. Also, thermal/combustion technologies has not been addressed nor referred to in the EA ToR. WM should provide a broader list of alternatives or provide a rationale as to why certain alternatives will not be considered. · In regards to the alternative “develop new landfill capacity”, it is unclear as to whether the proposed undertaking is included as part of this “alternative to”. This needs to be clarified. It would seem that alternative locations for new disposal capacity in the WM Ottawa market are being considered as an “alternative to” as opposed to an “alternative method”. Historically, alternative sites for a proposed technology are determined through a more detailed alternative methods assessment and evaluation. WM should review how these alternatives are presented and that they consider alternative locations for waste disposal (should it be selected as the preferred “alternative to” in the alternative method evaluation). As such, the focus of the “alternative to” evaluation would be to select the preferred waste management technology and then consider locations for this technology as part of the “alternative methods” assessment.
7. Description and Rationale for “Alternative Methods” of Carrying Out the Undertaking	· Page 11, first full sentence reads “The EA, in accordance with the requirements of section 6.1(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, will include a description of, and rationale for, the following “alternative methods” for carrying out the proposed undertaking”. Subsection 6.1(2)(b)(iii) of the EAA addresses “alternatives to”, whereas subsection 6.1(2)(b)(ii) addresses “alternative methods”. The proper subsection should be clarified. · Section 7 describes “alternative methods” of carrying out the undertaking, including “Landfill Footprint Alternatives”, “Site Access Alternatives”, Leachate Treatment Alternatives”, Leachate Containment” and “End Use Alternatives”. “Alternative methods” assume that the undertaking is confirmed as “provide additional disposal capacity”, as per an EA completed in accordance with subsection 6.1(3) of the EAA discussed above. However, if the EA is completed in accordance with subsection 6.1(2) of the EAA, “alternative methods” could apply to several different waste management alternatives. · The “alternative methods” evaluation is focused entirely on alternative ways of implementing the proposed expansion of the existing landfill and as such, there would appear to be a disconnect between the “alternatives to” stage and the “alternative methods” stage of the analysis. Recognizing that the preferred “alternative to” has yet to be selected, focusing on the expansion of the WM Ottawa facility is premature. A more generic description of the types of “alternative methods” that could be considered for each of the different “alternatives to” be provided. · Two of the “Landfill Footprint Alternatives”, including the North Alternative and the West Alternative, involve development of a stand-alone landfill facility on lands that are not owned by WM at present. WM should explain the rationale for identifying alternatives that may be considered on lands not owned by WM. This is inconsistent with the “alternatives to” identified in section 6, particularly “Develop New Disposal Capacity With the WM Ottawa Market Region”, which indicates that “WM would develop additional disposal capacity at one of its owned and controlled facilities…for providing the appropriate waste management infrastructure”. It is not clear how the North Alternative and the West Alternative can be identified if WM does not own all of the land that it intends to assess for additional disposal capacity. It is also not clear how lands that are “controlled” but not owned by WM can be defined as part of the current WM Ottawa WMF. · Alternative technologies assessment: A full EA focusing on Technology, Methods, Processes is required · Regarding Landfill Footprint Alternatives – City approval will also be required to permit the use. A zoning amendment would be required for the North and West “Footprint” Alternatives. What is not clear is the implication of the term “stand alone facility”. Is the alternative “stand alone facility” considered by MOE to be an expansion of the existing site? If so, then an Official Plan amendment would also be required to permit the use (Surface Operations and Traffic). Also, a “stand alone facility” implies that a new Certificate of Approval, as opposed to an amendment to the existing Certificate of Approval, may need to be sought. WM should clarify this issue.
8. Description of Environment Potentially Affected by the Proposed Undertaking	· WM should clearly indicate how “The Ottawa WMF has demonstrated that it is a suitable location for ongoing waste management activities” per the first sentence. This sentence implies that previous EA or other technical work has been completed to rationalize “ongoing” future operation of an expanded Ottawa WMF, which should be included or referenced in the Supporting Documentation section. Also, with respect to items f) and g) in Section 8 of the draft ToR, a review and summary of the Ottawa WMF’s compliance record vis ā vis all applicable provincial, municipal and federal permits, approvals and agreements should be included in the Supporting Documentation section. · The description of environmental conditions is focused on the area in the immediate vicinity of the existing facility. The MOE Guide for preparing EA ToRs indicates that the environmental components that could be affected by the proposed undertaking and its alternatives should be described. Recognizing that WM is considering alternatives in various locations, the description of environmental conditions should be expanded to match these alternatives. As the majority of the waste stream is generated from Ottawa, City boundaries should be used as the basis for the existing conditions description. · The EA ToR does not outline how more detailed baseline conditions for assessment, monitoring and mitigation for air, noise, odour, wastewater or leachate issues will be developed in the EA. This should be provided as per the EA ToR Preparation Guide. · As per the Guide, WM is to include a general description of the types of effects that can be expected from the undertaking. This could be accomplished by linking the presented assessment criteria in Appendix A to the possible effects from such a facility. · Under Air Quality heading (page 14), WM states, “Combined with appropriate final covering of the waste, landfill gas emissions are being controlled”. The City is concerned that existing landfill gas emissions are not being effectively controlled and suggests improvement in this impact be a priority both in the EA process and in current operations. Air quality assessment and evaluation criteria should be clearly defined, with reference point criteria in the ToR. · The gas collection system capture rates and plan should be included in the ToR. · Air quality/odour: Assessment of air quality and odour must be established on a threshold basis as the DATUM; not existing conditions suggested in the draft ToR. · The Tof R should specifically include all community, social, economic and environmental issues including but not limited to the listing included in Schedule A of Motion 55/1.
9. Environmental Assessment Methodology	· This section may require revision based on resolution of the issues previously discussed concerning definition of the undertaking and under what subsection of the Environmental Assessment Act that the EA will be completed.
9.1 Evaluation of “Alternatives To” and “Alternative Methods”	· It is somewhat confusing as to whether the presented methodology (and the Appendix A evaluation criteria) applies to the alternatives to evaluation and/or the alternative methods evaluation. The City recommends that the approach to confirming and assessing “alternatives to” and “alternative methods” be presented in separate subsections. · The evaluation approach indicates that other WM “facilities” within the Ottawa market will be considered. WM should clarify whether this means WM land and/or active WM facilities. · In Section 9.1 of the draft ToR, there is no discussion of how “comparative evaluation indicators” will be developed (page 16, item 4). The City requires public input into a defined process. Similarly, there is no discussion of the methods that will be used to develop the evaluation criteria, the criteria weight factors and the quantitative methods (e.g. weighted additive method, non-parametric additive method, dominance set method, etc.) for comparative assessment of “alternatives to” and “alternative methods”. The City requests establishment of a Technical Advisory Committee or similar functioning stakeholders group to work with WM in the development of the aforementioned issue.
9.2 Detailed Assessment of the Undertaking	· “WM may consider compensation measures to alleviate any nuisance impacts that may occur after all reasonable mitigation efforts” is vague. The term “nuisance” should be defined as should “all reasonable mitigation efforts”. · The City requests that an EA Monitoring Strategy be added to the Assessment of the Undertaking. The EA Monitoring Strategy should include at a minimum, a comprehensive list of monitoring commitments, and a monitoring strategy with trigger mechanisms, contingency plans and schedule.
11.1 Consultation on the Terms of Reference	· It is noted “WM intends to consult broadly with stakeholder groups on the content of these Terms of Reference”. Typically, the various stakeholders are specifically identified in the ToR, however, this is not evident in the draft ToR document. Waste Management should have consulted all stakeholders (the general public, public and private interest groups, provincial, municipal and federal government agencies, National Capital Commission, First Nations, etc.) prior to releasing the draft ToR.
11.2 Consultation Plan for the EA	· The consultation plan for the EA does not reference the MOE draft publication entitled “Guideline on Consultation in the Environmental Assessment Process” dated 15 December 2000. The draft ToR also should establish a process for the establishment of a Public Liaison Committee for the EA and include a conflict resolution process in the ToR · The draft ToR be amended to provide for effective and meaningful consultation as defined in Schedule B of Council Motion 55/1. · Given the high level of interest and concern with the proposed undertaking, it is suggested that a more detailed consultation plan be provided in the EA ToR that would include principles that will guide the consultation program throughout the EA process. Also a more interactive public engagement program is warranted. · The City requests that WM include a Technical Advisory Committee and a Community Liaison/Communications Committee to be funded by WM and made part of the EA process. WM should furtherFel agree to a facilitated EA process with a broad representation of interested parties as indicated in Motion 55/1. · With respect to consultation, Councillors El Chantiry, Feltmate and Stavinga held a public forum and workshop on March 28, 2006 to review the draft ToR and prepare comments. These comments are available through Councillor Stavinga’s office or the office of the City Clerk and should be reviewed by the proponent and addressed in the ToR. · It is recommended that all documents provided to the public be bilingual.
12. Other Approvals	· The draft ToR addresses the requirements for an expansion of a Solid Waste Disposal Site as set out in section 3.8 of the Official Plan (Surface Operations and Traffic). · WM should include the City of Ottawa’s requirement that a Record of Site Condition (RSC) be completed for potential Zoning By-law or Official Plan amendment applications in the event of landfill expansion. · The draft EA ToR identifies two other approvals: Environmental Protection Act and Planning Act (depending on the preferred alternative). The draft ToR should also identify Ontario Water Resources Act and Aggregate Resources Act approvals, if required.
List of Figures	· An additional aerial photo should be provided identifying the 3 km study area in the ToR.
Appendix A Environmental Assessment Criteria and Studies Other Comments:	· Different distance criteria (i.e. study areas) are proposed in order to measure environmental affects for individual environmental aspects. WM must explain why different study areas are being proposed for certain environmental aspects as opposed to utilization of consistent study areas. · WM should provide maps inclusive of all potentially affected areas (3 km+) · In the Air Quality Assessment, WM indicates the MOE Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) will be utilized. The City recommends the more commonly accepted models such as the US EPA’s AEROMOD dispersion model for emissions of both odour and total suspended particulate matter. · Post landfill closure plan and land use plans should be included in the ToR. · A long-term leachate quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan and remediation process should be included in the ToR. · Assessment for advanced waste processing and options/costs for consideration should be included in the draft ToR. · A waste diversion/reduction plan should be included in the ToR. · Airport issues, input and mitigation considerations should be included in the ToR. · Land opportunity for siting: all WM holdings in Eastern Ontario should be referenced in the ToR. · A property impact assessment study is not referenced in the ToR. Comments from Public Health Appropriate buffer zones · WM must provide how the buffer zones between the WMF and existing, and potential, development be determined and maintained and what the extent of the buffer zones will be. Access to site · WM must include a plan of how access to the site will be monitored and how the entrance by non-authorized personnel onto the site will be enforced. Monitoring of wastes · WM should provide the control measures that will be put in place to ensure that hazardous wastes are not disposed of at the site. Surface water · WM should provide a plan for diversion of surface run-on from the WMF. Where will surface run-off be diverted and what measures will be put in place to ensure the run-off does not impact surface waters? What contingencies are in place in case of prolonged heavy rainfall causing flooding conditions? WM must provide an assessment and plan to address these surface water issues. Wellhead protection area · Research must be undertaken to demonstrate that the WMF does not encroach on a ground water wellhead protection area. Leachate control · WM must provide information on the type of liner that will be used. WM must advise what measures will be in place to monitor the efficiency of the liner and what contingencies will be put in place in case of a liner malfunction? An investigation must be undertaken to demonstrate that there is no hydraulic connection between the bottom of the liner and the shallow ground water. Details must be provided as to the final outcome of the leachate (i.e. recycled into landfill, disposal at treatment plant, treatment on-site). Ground water · WM must provide details on the measures put in place to ensure that the shallow and deep aquifers are not impacted by the WMF, as well as details of the shallow and deep aquifer monitoring program. Contingencies must be put in place in case of an impact from the WMF on either or both aquifers. Air quality · WM must provide details regarding the control of landfill gases (explosive and odours) and details related to the monitoring of landfill gases, both above and below ground surface (i.e. along fissures in rock, utility lines). Contingencies must be in place in case of an accumulation of landfill gases capable of causing an explosion or contributing to odour problems. Details must be provided as to the control of landfill gases (i.e. passive/active gas collection) as well as their treatment (i.e. combustion/noncombustion, energy recovery) in order to alleviate explosion hazards and odours. Information should be provided as to the potential impact of the landfill gas treatment method to the outdoor air quality, including potential contributions to green house gases. Vermin and litter control · WM must provide details related to the control of vermin and scavengers, including rodents and birds, as well as to the control of litter on and off-site. Dust and particulate matter control · WM must provide details related to the control of dust and particulate matter on and off-site, and if applicable (i.e. an increase in vehicle traffic associated with the WMF), along the transportation route. Noise control · WM must provide details related to the control of noise on and off-site, and if applicable (i.e. an increase in vehicle traffic associated with the WMF), along the transportation route. Transportation · WM must provide information regarding the contingencies that must be in place in case of accidental spills or leaks along the transportation route. Final cover and closure · WM must provide details related to the design, construction and maintenance of the final cover. Contingencies must be in place in case of a malfunction in the final cover. Details must be provided related to the after-closure care of the landfill, including details on the after-closure monitoring activities; these details must also include how long the after- closure care will be undertaken.

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

Planning and ENVIRONMENT Committee Report 49-a Extract of draft Minutes 50 23 may 2006

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement Rapport 49-a Extrait de l’ébauche du procès-verbal 50 – 23 mai 2006

Comments on Environmental Assessment (EA) Draft Terms
of Reference released by Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the Carp Road Waste Management Facility

commentaires sur le cadre de référence préliminaire de l'évaluation environnementale (EE) publié par Waste Management of Canada Corporation pour l'installation de gestion des déchets du chemin Carp

ACS2006-Pws-utl-0011 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Mr. Ken Brothers, Director, Utility Services, Public Works and Services Department, introduced Mr. Michael Benson, of Conestoga-Rovers Consultants and Ms. Anne-Marie Fowler, Manager, Solid Waste Services, Public Works and Services. Mr. Brothers gave a PowerPoint presentation on City staff’s response to the Terms of Reference prepared by Waste Management Canada (WMC) to expand the Carp Road Waste Management facility. The presentation included an update on the City’s Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP), information on current and future residential waste diversion programs and the need to examine new and emerging technologies. Mr. Brothers also noted that provincial direction and support would be required to meet the 60% diversion targets for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) waste.

Mr. Benson gave a detailed presentation on the Environmental Assessment Process, noting that WMC is at the start of an exercise that will include government and public review of the Terms of Reference (ToR) during a 12-week period (which can be extended by the MOE) prior to receiving the Minister’s decision on the Terms of Reference.

Mr. Brothers detailed staff’s comments on the Draft ToR indicating these would be forwarded to the MOE after the June 14, 2006 City Council meeting. With regard to WMC’s schedule, Mr. Brothers said its next steps would include finalizing the ToR and preparing all the supporting documentation for submission to the MOE for posting on the Environmental Registry in June. The Minister’s decision is expected in September.

Prior to hearing public delegations, Committee Vice-Chair Peggy Feltmate read out five Motions meant to address the following areas of concern:

· Ensuring Compliance of Existing Operations –Public Accountability and Trust;

· Deficiencies in the Terms of Reference – Need for Adequate Public Review of Revisions;

· Support for the Communities’ Response

· Accelerating City Actions on 60% Waste Diversion Target

· Provincial Action Required for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Waste.

The Councillor thanked her colleagues, Councillors Janet Stavinga and Eli El-Chantiry, and City staff for their hard work with citizens’ coalitions and their help in drafting the Motions. In reply to Councillor Feltmate’s question, Mr. Richard Hewitt, Acting Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services, confirmed that staff reviewed the Motions and found these contained nothing contrary to the contents of the staff report.

Councillor Gord Hunter suggested that Motion 4, which deals with accelerating the waste diversion target, was outside the discussion on the Terms of Reference. He expressed the hope the discussion would remain focused and that Motion 4 would be ruled Out of Order at this time. Chair Peter Hume said he would take this under advisement and consult with Legal Services staff.

Chair Hume asked whether staff have information on the composition of the ICI waste stream. Mr. Brothers admitted that the last “characterization” of ICI wastes was done years ago, however a full assessment would be undertaken in 2007. He added that the characterization of waste at the Carp Road facility was up to WMC and City staff have commented to that effect.

Councillor Alex Cullen referred to the chart “Total Waste Landfilled by Location”, and he inquired about the impact on capacity at the Trail Road landfill site should the expansion of Carp Road facility not be approved. Mr. Brothers replied that construction/demolition and ICI materials would be privately disposed of but some of this material would likely end up at Trail Road. If all the material went to Trail Road, the remaining capacity would be 4 to 5 years. In response to a further question from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Brothers said that accepting all residential waste at Trail Road would result in a three-year reduction to the eleven-year capacity left there. The Councillor asked whether the 60% diversion target also applied to the ICI sector. Mr. Brothers said the staff report states that the Province has not been as diligent as it could have been in helping industries with ICI waste diversion. He confirmed that the responsibility for bringing the ICI waste diversion target to 60% rests with the Province.

Councillor Janet Stavinga asked why staff are not recommending rejecting the Tof Rs if they find them deficient and further, should WMC choose not to amend the ToRs to reflect City and community concerns, would staff report back to Committee highlighting deficiencies and ramping up the p