|
1.
RESPONSE TO
CARP LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)
Suite à donner aux modalités de l’évaluation environnementale de la
décharge du chemin Carp
|
Committee recommendations as
amended
That Council endorse the
comments contained in Document 2 as the City’s comments on Waste Management of
Canada Corporation’s (WM) Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference for the
Carp Landfill, as amended by the following Motions:
1. WHEREAS
the city’s new initiatives in the integrated WM plan will lead towards a 21st
century solution for managing solid waste and maximizing waste diversion;
AND
WHEREAS the City’s comments on WM ToR support a full EA in accordance with Section 6(2)(a) and subsection
6.1(2) of the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act.;
AND
WHEREAS the City requests consideration of a stand alone waste combustion with
Energy from Waste (EFW) alternative;
AND
WHEREAS the City emphasizes that any significant issues as deemed by the
appropriate authorities that arise be addressed in the detailed assessment
work;
AND
WHEREAS the City directs WM to ensure that environmental affects are assessed
and that all assessments include the greater communities of Stittsville and
Kanata;
AND
WHEREAS the City and the community has collaborated collectively on the city’s
submission to the ToR;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council strongly
endorse the comments contained in Document 2 as the City’s comments on Waste
Management of Canada Corporation’s (WM) Environmental Assessment Terms of
Reference for the Carp Landfill.
And that
this motion be circulated to the Premier of Ontario, Minister of the
Environment and all Ottawa area M.P.P.s..
2. WHEREAS on
March 2, 2007 Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) provided notice to
the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) requesting the suspension of the timing
of the government review to consider amendments to the proposed Terms of
Reference (ToR) and provide responses to the large number of comments received
on the ToR;
AND WHEREAS the MOE does not require WM to provide for a formal
public notification and review period on their amendments the ToR;
AND WHEREAS the City and the community are unaware of the magnitude
of WM's amendments to the ToR;
AND WHEREAS WM is allowed up to 56 days to make amendments to their
ToR , yet the City and community is provided with no prescribed formal public
comment period on these amendments;
AND WHEREAS on or about April 12, 2007 WM has committed to host a
public meeting on their amendments to the TOR;
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED that Council requests:
1. That
MOE ensures the City, the community and any other interested parties be given a
minimum of 30 days to allow a fair opportunity and full comment on the
amendments to the ToR following the public meeting convened by WM on or about
April 12, 2007; and,
And
that this motion be circulated to the Premier of Ontario, Minister of the
Environment and all Ottawa area M.P.P.s.
3. WHEREAS the City has substantial
interest in the outcome of the EA process because of potential environment,
social and economic impacts that the proposed expansion could have on the
residents and businesses of the City of Ottawa;
WHEREAS recognizing the complexity of the EA process the City requires
Waste Management (WM) to support the creation of a multi-disciplinary
Independent Peer Review Team to represent the interests of the municipality;
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Peer Review Team will be to comprehensively
review, comment on and provide independent analysis and advice on all aspects
of the proposed expansion, its impact on the municipality and on other
stakeholders as well as the EA process;
WHEREAS, Independent Peer Review Teams were established for the Greater
Town of Napanee through a MOU with Waste Management (formerly Canadian Waste
Services) for the EA process and a similar agreement was undertaken between the
Township of Warwick and WM through the EA process;
WHEREAS, a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) as proposed in the ToR is not
a substitute for an Independent Peer Review Team and the proposed PAC is
completely inadequate to respond to the complexity of the EA process;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council requests the ToR be amended
to include an Independent Peer Review Team.
And that this motion be circulated
to the Premier of Ontario, Minister of the Environment and all Ottawa area
M.P.P.s..
4. WHEREAS on June 14, 2006 City
Council unanimously approved a motion seeking the express assurance of the
Minister of the Environment of the operational compliance of Waste Management
of Canada's waste management facility on Carp Road;
AND 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);
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that Council reiterates its 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, to the City and be placed on the public record for
review;
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."
RecommandationS modifiÉes du Comité
Que le
Conseil appuie les commentaires figurant à la pièce document 2 comme étant ceux
de la Ville concernant les modalités de l’évaluation environnementale préparée
par la Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) pour la décharge du chemin
Carp, telles que modifiées par les motions suivantes :
1. ATTENDU
QUE les nouvelles initiatives de la Ville, prévues dans le Plan directeur de la
gestion intégrée des déchets, déboucheront sur une solution du XXIe siècle pour gérer les déchets
solides et en maximiser le réacheminement;
ATTENDU QUE les commentaires de la
Ville sur le cadre de référence de Waste Management (WM) appuient la tenue
d’une évaluation environnementale (ÉE) exhaustive, conformément aux alinéas
6(2)(a) et 6.1(2) de la Loi sur les
évaluations environnementales (LEE);
ATTENDU QUE la Ville demande
l’examen de l’option d’une installation autonome d’incinération des déchets
avec récupération de l’énergie des déchets (EDD) comme option de rechange;
ATTENDU QUE la Ville demande avec
insistance que toute question d’importance, de l’avis des autorités
compétentes, soit abordée dans le cadre d’une évaluation détaillée;
ATTENDU QUE la Ville donne
instruction à WM de s’assurer que les incidences environnementales soient
évaluées et que toutes les évaluations portent sur les collectivités entières
de Stittsville et de Kanata;
ATTENDU QUE la Ville et la
collectivité ont collaboré à la préparation du rapport de la Ville concernant
le cadre de référence du projet de WM;
IL EST RÉSOLU QUE le Comité de l’urbanisme et
de l’environnement recommande fortement au Conseil d’avaliser les commentaires
présentés dans le document 2 comme les commentaires de la Ville
relativement au cadre de référence de l’évaluation environnementale de Waste
Management of Canada Corporation (WM) pour l’installation de gestion des
déchets du chemin Carp;
Et que cette motion soit transmise
au premier ministre de l’Ontario, à la ministre de l’Environnement de l’Ontario
et à tous les députés provinciaux de la région d’Ottawa.
2. ATTENDU
QUE le 2 mars 2007, Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) a demandé au
ministère de l’Environnement (MDE) de suspendre l’échéancier de révision
gouvernementale afin d’examiner des modifications possibles au cadre de
référence proposé et de donner suite au grand nombre de commentaires reçus
concernant ce document;
ATTENDU
QUE le MDE n’exige pas que WM prévoie un avis public officiel et une période
d’examen public relatifs aux modifications apportées au cadre de référence;
ATTENDU
QUE la Ville et la collectivité ignorent la portée des modifications faites au
cadre de référence par WM;
ATTENDU
QUE WM dispose d’une période maximum de 56 jours pour apporter des
modifications à son cadre de référence, mais que la Ville et la collectivité ne
disposent d’aucune période d’examen public prescrite pour leur permettre de
revoir ces modifications;
ATTENDU
QUE WM s’est engagée à tenir une réunion publique sur les modifications
apportées à son cadre de référence le 12 avril 2007 ou aux environs de cette
date;
IL
EST RÉSOLU QUE le Conseil demande :
1.
Que le MDE fasse en sorte que la
Ville, la collectivité et toute autre partie intéressée disposent d’au moins 30
jours pour examiner et commenter pleinement et en toute justice les
modifications apportées au cadre de référence à la suite de la réunion publique
qui sera convoquée par WM le 12 avril 2007 ou aux environs de cette date;
Et
que cette motion soit transmise au premier ministre de l’Ontario, à la ministre
de l’Environnement de l’Ontario et à tous les députés provinciaux de la région
d’Ottawa.
3. ATTENDU
QUE la Ville s’intéresse vivement à l’aboutissement du processus d’évaluation
environnementale (ÉE) en raison des répercussions environnementales, sociales
et économiques que le projet d’agrandissement de la décharge à déchets pourrait
avoir sur les résidents et les commerces d’Ottawa;
ATTENDU QUE la Ville reconnaît la
complexité du processus d’ÉE et exige que Waste Management (WM) appuie la
création d’une équipe d’examen multidisciplinaire indépendante pour défendre
les intérêts de la municipalité;
ATTENDU QUE le rôle de l’équipe
d’examen multidisciplinaire indépendante consistera à examiner en profondeur, à
commenter et à analyser tout aspect du projet d’agrandissement proposé, de son
impact sur la municipalité et les autres intervenants, ainsi que du processus
d’ÉE même, et à formuler des avis à la lumière de ses observations;
ATTENDU QUE des équipes d’examen
multidisciplinaires indépendantes ont été créées pour le Grand Napanee en vertu
d’un protocole d’entente avec Waste Management (anciennement Canadian Waste
Services) pour un processus d’ÉE, et qu’une entente semblable a aussi été
conclue entre le canton de Warwick et WM dans le cadre d’un processus d’ÉE;
ATTENDU QUE le Comité de
consultation publique (CCP) proposé dans le cadre de référence ne peut
remplacer une équipe d’examen multidisciplinaire indépendante et est tout à
fait inadéquat compte tenu de la complexité du processus d’ÉE;
Il EST RÉSOLU QUE le Conseil
municipal demande la modification du cadre de référence afin d’y inclure une
équipe d’examen multidisciplinaire indépendante;
Et que cette motion soit transmise
au premier ministre de l’Ontario, à la ministre de l’Environnement de l’Ontario
et à tous les députés provinciaux de la région d’Ottawa.
4. ATTENDU QUE le 14 juin 2006, le Conseil
municipal a approuvé à l’unanimité une motion demandant une garantie expresse
de la part de la ministre de l’Environnement relativement à la conformité des
activités de l’installation de gestion des déchets de Waste Management of
Canada, située sur le chemin Carp;
ATTENDU QUE le dossier de conformité
aux lois environnementales de tout promoteur cherchant à obtenir ou à faire
renouveler un certificat d’approbation doit être soumis à l’examen de la
ministre de l’Environnement;
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 de gestion des déchets ont des responsabilités
envers les personnes qui vivent à proximité de ces installations, et à l’égard
de l’environnement et des générations qui habiteront dans le secteur à
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 de l’environnement
prendra en considération et constitue un mécanisme de réévaluation des
certificats d’approbation existants;
ATTENDU QUE le ministère de
l’environnement 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);
IL EST RÉSOLU QUE le Conseil demande à nouveau à la
ministre de l’Environnement :
1. De fournir à la Ville 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/ou
permis fédéraux, provinciaux et municipaux connexes, et de faire en sorte que
ces documents soient versés au dossier public à des fins d’examen;
2. De produire tous les
rapports de conformité réglementaires ainsi que les dossiers de
plaintes/interventions touchant à l’installation de gestion des déchets du
chemin Carp, soumis par le promoteur (Waste Management) au ministère de
l’Environnement au cours des 10 dernières années d’exploitation, et de faire en sorte que ces documents soient versés au dossier public à
des fins d’examen;
3. De
suspendre tout nouvel examen du cadre de référence jusqu’à ce que le statut de
l’installation de gestion des déchets du chemin Carp et de la société Waste
Management en matière de conformité à la réglementation ait été confirmé;
4. Et
que cette motion soit transmise au premier ministre de l’Ontario, à la ministre
de l’Environnement de l’Ontario et à tous les députés provinciaux de la région
d’Ottawa.
IL EST EN OUTRE DÉCIDÉ que le
Conseil fera circuler la présente motion au premier ministre de l'Ontario, au
ministre de l'Environnement, à tous les députés provinciaux de la région
d'Ottawa, à l'Association des municipalités de l'Ontario et au personnel
compétent du ministère de l'Environnement.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Public
Works and Services
dated 15 March 2007 (ACS2007-PWS-UTL-0005).
2. Citizens Coalition Comments on Carp Landfill
Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference – Documentation issues separately.
Report to/Rapport au:
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
15 March 2007 / le 15 mars 2007
Submitted by/Soumis par: R.G. Hewitt,
Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjoint
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
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2007-PWS-UTL-0005
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
RESPONSE TO CARP LANDFILL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
Suite à donner
aux modalités de l’évaluation environnementale de la décharge du chemin Carp
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council endorse the comments contained in Document 2 as the City’s comments on
Waste Management of Canada Corporation’s (WM) Environmental Assessment Terms of
Reference for the Carp Landfill.
RECOMMANDATION
DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et
de l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’appuyer les commentaires figurant à
la pièce document 2 comme étant ceux de la Ville concernant les modalités de
l’évaluation environnementale préparée par la Waste Management of Canada
Corporation (WM) pour la décharge du chemin Carp.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
The City supports a
full EA, consistent with subsection 6(2)(a) and 6.1(2) of the EAA to
adequately assess the broader range of “alternatives to” the proposal.
2.
The EA should provide
information about WM’s current waste diversion efforts with its customer base
and at the Ottawa WMF in order to more fully establish a need for the proposal.
3.
In consideration of “alternatives to” the
undertaking, the City recommends that WM add a stand-alone waste
combustion with Energy From Waste (EFW) alternative. Alternatively, direct WM to evaluate two alternatives
involving waste combustion: (1) waste
combustion with EFW and (2) waste combustion with EFW combined with new
landfill disposal capacity.
a.
The resulting “alternative methods”
should be added with any waste combustion alternative being (1) the beneficial
reuse, on or off-site, of non-hazardous residual waste ash generated from
combustion processes; and (2) on-site disposal of hazardous residual waste ash
generated from combustion processes, (3) off-site disposal of hazardous
residual waste ash generated from combustion processes, or (4) on-site
treatment of the hazardous residual waste so as to render it non-hazardous.
4.
In consideration of “alternatives to” the
undertaking, the WM EA should evaluate bioreactor technology as an alternative
method of carrying out the new landfill disposal capacity – whether stand-alone
or in combination with waste combustion with EFW. This recommendation was include since WM’s parent company, Waste
Management Inc. (WMI), has identified such technology as being evaluated at
other WMI facilities.
a.
WM should evaluate bioreactor landfill
technology alternative methods such as (1) aerobic design, (2) anaerobic design
and (3) hybrid design using sequential aerobic and anaerobic design zones.
5.
WM should provide an initial consultation
milestone within the EA specifically on the environmental assessment criteria
that have been developed, and the comparative methods used to evaluate the
environmental effects associated with the various “alternatives to” and
“alternative methods.”
6.
The EA should determine or assess
“reasonable mitigation methods” through consultation with the MOE, other
Government Review Team members, the Public Advisory Committee, the City and the
public.
7.
The EA should identify gross effects on
the environment first and then net effects following implementation of
“reasonable” mitigation methods.
8.
The “significance” of new issues, arising
from the detailed assessment work, should be determined through consultation
with the MOE, other Government Review Team members, the Public Advisory
Committee, the City and the public.
Should any new issues or concerns be deemed through such consultation to
be “significant”, these issues would be required to be addressed in the
detailed assessment work.
9.
WM should include an issue and dispute
resolution strategy as a critical component of its consultation plan.
The EAA sets forth a broad planning framework
to allow for the implementation of major proposals, such as WM’s proposal for
additional waste disposal capacity.
Through the requirements of the EAA, it is expected that an objective,
reproducible, transparent and thorough process will be followed in
consideration of the proposal at hand.
Municipal residual waste, industrial,
commercial and institutional waste from both rural and urban areas is accepted
at the Carp Landfill. WM is
contractually committed to reserving a sliding scale of 75-90% of its lifetime
capacity to waste generated within Ottawa as per the Settlement Agreement
signed in 2001. As the City currently
directs the required 30% of its municipal residual waste for disposal at the
Carp Landfill, WM is reserving 90% of its volumetric capacity for waste
generated within Ottawa.
As previously noted, Utility Services Branch
staff consulted internally within the City and made contact with the
Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority in regards to their comments on
the ToR. On 5 February, a meeting was held with a representative from the
Mayor’s office, five west-end Councillors and their staff to present an
overview of the City’s comments and address any questions. Later that same week, staff presented a more
detailed draft overview of the City’s comments with the Mayor’s Office, the
five west-end Councillors and the Coalition of Citizen Groups and Volunteers
Representing the Community (the Carp Coalition). That same day, staff met with a representative of the
Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) to receive their comments. The Carp Coalition and EAC were both
generally in support of the draft comments; final staff comments were revised
and submitted with amendments by senior management.
Council
Motion No. 55 – March 23, 2006
|
Concern Addressed by ToR
|
ToR
Reference
|
|
WHEREAS in mid-January, Waste Management of Canada
Corp. (WM) announced its proposal to expand its Ottawa waste management
facility (WMF), currently located near the intersection of Carp Road and
Highway 417 to meet growing recycling, composting and landfill capacity
needs;
|
Notice of Submission of these final ToR was posted
on the EBR web site on January 12, 2007.
The MOE will accept comments on the ToR until February 12, 2007. The purpose of the proposed undertaking is
to provide additional disposal capacity at, or in the vicinity of, the Ottawa
WMF, in order to allow WM to continue to manage its current commercial operations
and support the growth of its business operations.
|
Section 1 and Section 3
|
|
AND WHEREAS the City of
Ottawa, through its Integrated Waste Management Master Plan, is taking steps
to achieve a 60% waste diversion target; to monitor, test, evaluate and
implement alternative technologies and other environmental initiatives for
waste management; and to continue to reserve landfill disposal capacity
within Ottawa for locally-generated solid waste;
|
The EA will not examine anticipated population
growth, changes to waste management strategies which may result in the
reduction of the total amount of waste requiring disposal, or other factors
which may alter the quantity of waste requiring disposal over the 25 year
period. Additional waste disposal
capacity is required in order for WM to meet its long-term commitments to
provide waste disposal capacity. One
of those long term commitments is the provision of waste disposal capacity to
the City based on the City’s continuing interest in reserving disposal capacity
at the Ottawa WMF as outlined in their IWMMP. The EA will provide a summary of public policy respecting
current and future waste diversion targets in Ottawa and Ontario/. The
rationale for the proposed undertaking will include a description of WM’s role
in supporting increased waste reduction and diversion from disposal in the
City of Ottawa. Building on the
infrastructure of the existing facility, WM will be able to enhance its
commercial operations by providing a wider range of integrated waste management
services supporting waste diversion processing facilities and energy
production through utilization of landfill gas
|
Section 5.2 and Section 3.2
|
|
AND WHEREAS WM has access to provincial legislation
to apply for an expansion under the Environmental
Assessment Act;
|
WM and the MOE have executed an agreement pursuant
to Section 3.01 of the EA Act for this proposal
|
Section 1
|
|
AND WHEREAS the draft Terms
of Reference (ToR) establishes the framework for the preparation and review
of an Environmental Assessment (EA);
|
The final ToR document sets out in detail the
requirements for the preparation of the proposed EA and how it will be
carried out. The final ToR is the
first step in the preparation of an EA.
|
Section 1
|
|
AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa, Federal and
Provincial agencies and local residents are key stakeholders in the
development of the draft ToR for the Environmental Assessment for the
proposed expansion of the WMF;
|
WM consulted with a broad stakeholder group on the
content of the draft ToR. Based on
the comments received, changes were made to the draft document and
incorporated into the final ToR.
Comments received directly from the public, community organizations,
the City of Ottawa and agencies have been reviewed by WM, summarized and
tabulated and responses prepared to these issues/concerns. The tabulated information is included in
the Consultation Supporting Document.
|
Section 12.1 and Consultation on the Terms of
Reference Supporting Document (Appendices C, D and E)
|
|
AND WHEREAS the draft ToR appears to indicate that
WM will conduct a full EA, but the ToR is so finely focused on the existing
site and lands in the immediate vicinity that WM is actually proposing to
conduct a very limited, or “scoped”, EA and is therefore not in keeping with
the spirit of the EA Act nor is it in accordance with the expectations of the
Ministry of the Environment as outlined in its “Guide To Preparing Terms of
Reference for Environmental Assessments, Draft" and "Guideline on
Consultation in the Environmental Assessment Process, Draft";
|
These final ToR have been prepared in compliance
with Section 6(2)(c) of the EA Act, which allows WM to “set out in detail the
requirements for the preparation of the environmental assessment”. The EA will also consist of those items listed
in Subsection 6.1(2) of the EA Act as permitted by Subsection 6.1(3) of the
EA Act. Subsection 6.1(3) of the EA
Act indicates that “the approved ToR may provide that the environmental
assessment consist of information other than that required by Subsection
(2)”, which provides for a “scoped” or ”focused” EA. WM’s intent is to prepare a focused EA but
address all aspects of Subsection 6.1(2) of the EA Act.
|
Section 1 and Consultation on the Terms of Reference
Supporting Document (Section 10.1 and Appendix E)
|
|
AND WHEREAS the draft ToR
proposed by WM provides an Environmental Assessment framework that is limited
in scope, unclear, imprecise and deficient in adhering to EA planning
principles, and does not examine many important issues;
|
See comments above.
WM has prepared the final ToR in accordance with Section 6(2)(c) of
the EA Act, and the EA will consist of those items listed in Subsection
6.1(2) of the EA Act as permitted by Subsection 6.1(3). WM has consulted with the MOE on this
matter with regard to the draft ToR, and has clarified its position in the
final ToR document.
|
Section 4 and Consultation on the Terms of Reference
Supporting Document (Appendix E)
|
|
AND WHEREAS in the
description of the undertaking, it is clear that WM intends to accept
non-hazardous waste “generated in the Province of Ontario” and expand the
current service area to include the Outaouais region of Quebec;
|
The proposed undertaking, to provide additional
waste disposal capacity at, or in the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF, will
continue to accept non-hazardous waste generated in the Province of
Ontario. The WMF will be positioned
primarily to serve Ottawa, and secondarily to serve the Eastern Ontario
region. WM has an agreement with the
City to reserve a significant portion of disposal capacity at the Ottawa WMF for
City generated wastes. The Ottawa WMF
has historically reserved 90 percent of its disposal capacity for residential
and industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) wastes generated
within the City of Ottawa. Based on
comments received on the draft ToR, the inclusion of the Outaouais region in
the service area for the proposed undertaking has been removed from the final
ToR
|
Section 5.1, Section 3 and Consultation on the Terms
of Reference Supporting Document (Appendix E).
|
|
AND WHEREAS WM has made a
public commitment to not accepting waste from Toronto at the WMF at Carp
Road;
|
WM has made a public commitment to not accept
non-hazardous municipal waste from the City of Toronto.
|
|
|
AND WHEREAS City Council is
seriously concerned about the proposed expansion of service areas to Quebec
and other parts of Ontario;
|
The proposed undertaking, to provide additional
waste disposal capacity at, or in the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF, will
continue to accept non-hazardous waste generated in the Province of Ontario. The WMF will be positioned primarily to
serve Ottawa, and secondarily serve the Eastern Ontario region. WM has an agreement with the City to
reserve a significant portion of disposal capacity at the Ottawa WMF for City
generated wastes. The Ottawa WMF has
historically reserved 90 percent of its disposal capacity for residential and
industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) wastes generated within
the City of Ottawa. Based on comments
received on the draft ToR, the inclusion of the Outaouais region in the
service area for the proposed undertaking has been removed from the final
ToR.
|
Section 5.1, Section 3 and Consultation on the Terms
of Reference Supporting Document (Appendix E).
|
|
AND WHEREAS the City of
Ottawa and affected residents must have effective and meaningful input during
all phases of the Environmental Assessment process;
|
WM consulted with a broad stakeholder group on the
content of the draft ToR. Based on
the comments received, changes were made to the draft document and incorporated
into the final ToR. Comments received
directly from the public, community organizations, the City of Ottawa and
agencies have been reviewed by WM, summarized and tabulated and responses
prepared to these issues/concerns.
The tabulated information is included in the Consultation Supporting
Document.
|
Section 12.1 and Consultation on the Terms of
Reference Supporting Document (Appendices C, D and E)
|
|
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the City of Ottawa request that WM conduct the broadest Environmental
Assessment to ensure the examination of all major issues including but not
limited to an examination of other lands/facilities owned by WM in Ontario
and Quebec, lands/facilities owned by the City of Ottawa, alternatives
including emerging technologies such as waste diversion, incineration, energy
from waste, stabilized landfilling, and plasma gasification;
|
WM has committed to completing a “focused” EA in
accordance with Section 6(2)(c) and Subsections 6.1(2) and 6.1(3) of the EA
Act. The EA will consider specific
“alternatives to” the WM undertaking.
Alternatives to the proposed undertaking are functionally different
ways of approaching and dealing with additional disposal capacity at, or in
the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF.
WM intends to consider only those alternatives that are within the
business mandate of WM, and which in the sole opinion of WM, are economically
viable. The EA will only consider the
following “alternatives to” the undertaking: do nothing; export of wastes
generated within Ottawa and Eastern Ontario and managed by WM to disposal
capacity at a WM owned and controlled facility outside the City of Ottawa
either in Ontario or within another jurisdiction; waste combustion with
energy recovery at, or in the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF in combination
with development of new landfill disposal capacity; and develop new landfill
disposal capacity at, or in the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF.
|
Section 1 and Section 6
|
|
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the community, social, economic and environmental issues including but
not limited to the listing in Schedule “A” be also incorporated in the
review;
|
Appendix A describes the environmental assessment
criteria and impact assessment studies that will be carried out by WM during
the environmental assessment of the WM Ottawa WMF.
|
Appendix A
|
|
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that effective and meaningful consultation (as further defined in Schedule
“B”) on all aspects of the draft ToR and the EA be included as part of that
process;
|
A description of the consultation activities
undertaken, and stakeholders consulted, for the development of the draft ToR
and the effect this consultation has had on the final ToR is described in the
supporting documents entitled Consultation on the Terms of Reference
Supporting Document. In accordance
with Subsection 6.1(2)(e) of the EA Act, a description of the consultation
plan carried out by WM during the EA, along with the results of that plan,
will be documented in the EA. The
objective is to promote and obtain public input into the decision-making
process, and demonstrate how this input was incorporated.
|
Section 12, Section 12.2 and Consultation on the
Terms of Reference Supporting Document
|
|
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that WM be requested to redraft the proposed draft ToR so that all of the
above concerns are included and that an independent peer review of both the
draft Terms of Reference and the full Environmental Assessment be included as
part of the workplan; and that the revised draft ToR and the draft EA be
brought forward to Planning and Environment Committee and City Council for
review prior to being submitted to the Ministry of the Environment;
|
A description of the consultation activities
undertaken, and stakeholders consulted, for the development of the draft ToR
and the effect this consultation has had on the final ToR is described in the
supporting documents entitled Consultation on the Terms of Reference
Supporting Document. WM did not
request an independent peer review of either the draft or final ToR nor has
it committed to an independent peer review of the Environmental
Assessment. WM also did not bring
forward a revised draft ToR to Planning and Environment Committee and City
Council for review prior to submission to the MOE, nor has WM committed to
bringing forward a draft EA to Planning and Environment Committee and City
Council prior to submission to the MOE
|
Section 12 and Consultation on the Terms of
Reference Supporting Document
|
|
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that, in an effort to reinforce the need for each municipality in Ontario to
work towards a home-grown solution for their own waste management issues,
both WM and Ontario’s Minister of the Environment confirm in writing that the
Carp Road Landfill will not be permitted to receive waste from an expanded service
area, including Toronto, the GTA and the Province of Quebec, and that should
any additional landfill capacity be approved anywhere in Ottawa, that the
City retain 90% reserved capacity for Ottawa waste;
|
The proposed undertaking, to provide additional
waste disposal capacity at, or in the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF, will
continue to accept non-hazardous waste generated in the Province of
Ontario. The WMF will be positioned
primarily to serve Ottawa, and secondarily serve the Eastern Ontario region. WM has an agreement with the City to
reserve a significant portion of disposal capacity at the Ottawa WMF for City
generated wastes. The Ottawa WMF has
historically reserved 90 percent of its disposal capacity for residential and
industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) wastes generated within
the City of Ottawa. Based on comments
received on the draft ToR, the inclusion of the Outaouais region in the
service area for the proposed undertaking has been removed from the final
ToR.
|
Section 5.1, Section 3 and Consultation on the Terms
of Reference Supporting Document (Appendix E).
|
|
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the staff report that is being prepared on the issue include a detailed
explanation of the City’s plan and timelines to meet Ottawa’s 60% waste
diversion target.
|
The final ToR indicate that the EA will provide: an
inventory of non-hazardous waste generation, diversion and disposal (Ontario
and export) for the base year (2005); a summary of public policy respecting
current and future waste diversion targets in Ottawa and Ontario; a
description of WM’s business mandate and role within the waste management
services sector; and an assessment and description of the business
opportunity available to WM locally, regionally and provincially having regard
to the above.
|
Section 5.2
|
|
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that WM be asked to agree to a facilitated Environmental Assessment process
involving a broad representation of interested parties, including citizens,
community associations, environmental and public health organizations, the
City, local conservation authorities and WM.
|
In response to stakeholder comments, WM will seek to
form a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) as part of the environmental
assessment. The role of the PAC will
be to review and provide comment on all WM submissions prepared as part of
the EA, for which public comments are being requested. The PAC will be comprised of a group of
community stakeholders from the broader community. A proposed draft Terms of Reference for the PAC is included in
the Consultation on the Terms of Reference Supporting Document. The role of the PAC will not include peer
review or involve public meetings.
The PAC will be required to prepare a report of their work at the
conclusion of the consultation period.
The report of the PAC will become part of the public record and
available for review by others. WM
will fund a third party facilitator who will be responsible for coordinating
the following efforts of the PLC: ensuring effective communication and response
by those involved; meeting the 60 day consultation timeline specified by WM;
defining a Terms of Reference for the PAC; and report on PAC activities.
|
Section 12.2 and Consultation on the Terms of
Reference Supporting Document
|
SCHEDULE A
PRELIMINARY LIST OF
COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS FOR THE DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
Issues include but are not
limited to:
|
|
|
|
Social, economic and cultural impact assessment
|
Addressed
|
Appendix A
|
|
Visual impact assessment
|
Addressed
|
Appendix A
|
|
Groundwater/surface water impact assessment,
including existing contamination issues
|
Addressed
|
Appendix A
|
|
Impact on the development of the Ottawa/Carp Airport
|
Nuisance impacts of aviation vectors is addressed by
Appendix A.
Potential for local business
disruption is partially addressed, but does not extend far enough to the “In
the Community” study area, which would incorporate the Carp Airport.
|
Some impacts are addressed in Appendix A
|
|
Environmental health concerns, including odour,
dust, noise, litter, migration of waste off site
|
Addressed
|
Appendix A
|
|
Environmental and ecological impact assessment
|
Addressed
|
Appendix A
|
|
Public health concerns
|
Addressed
|
Appendix A
|
|
Height of the landfill
|
Addressed
|
Appendix A
|
|
Leachate management
|
Addressed
|
Appendix A
|
|
Traffic
|
Addressed
|
Appendix A
|
|
Bird and pest control
|
Addressed
|
Appendix A
|
|
Independent reporting/tracking of customer base,
yearly tonnage and annual intake by source and origin, and waste mix
|
This issue has been partially addressed through the
rationale set out in the ToR.
WM is required to provide an annual report regarding
the operation of the existing facility to the MOE. This report includes an overview of waste tonnages, waste
types, source/origin of the materials disposed of at the site. Specific customer information is not
provided and the report is prepared for WM by an independent consultant. Should additional landfill disposal
capacity be secured by WM as an outcome of the EA, it is expected that the
MOE would impose this reporting requirement as part of its EPA approval.
|
Section 5.2
and
Appendix E of the Consultation on the Terms of Reference Supporting
Document, page 5
|
|
Alternative
technologies/sites
|
The EA will only consider the following
“alternatives to” the undertaking: do nothing; export of wastes generated
within Ottawa and Eastern Ontario and managed by WM to disposal capacity at a
WM owned and controlled facility outside the City of Ottawa either in Ontario
or within another jurisdiction; waste combustion with energy recovery at, or
in the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF in combination with development of new
landfill disposal capacity; and develop new landfill disposal capacity at, or
in the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF.
|
Section 6
|
|
Description of
the geographic area
|
Addressed
|
Section 5.2 and Section 8
|
|
SCHEDULE B – PRINCIPLES OF
MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION
Meaningful consultation
should, at a minimum, involve representatives of affected constituent groups
and the wider community in meaningful dialogue with the proponent throughout
the EA decision-making process.
The consultation process for the entire EA should
adhere to the following guiding principles:
|
WM has committed to a consultation plan in
accordance with Subsection 6.1(2)(e) of the EA Act.
|
Section 12
|
|
·
identifying before
undertaking the consultation the group(s) and/or individuals to be consulted;
·
build understanding
(not just provision of information);
·
provide timely and
adequate information for the purpose of the consultation;
·
seek best-balanced
decisions for the undertaking, taking into account positive and negative
impacts;
·
actively seek views
and engage in dialogue with a variety of interested, affected groups and/or
individuals and key sources of information;
·
respect opinions and
input;
·
communicate clearly to
all contributors the results, including the decision reached, the action
taken, and the rationale for the decision;
·
include a means of
assessing the effectiveness of the consultation, and to provide for
follow-up;
·
recognize that
constituent groups may have their own constraints (e.g., neighbours may be at
a disadvantage because they lack independent advice on the EA process and the
scientific details of the EA impact assessment studies); and
·
include consultative
dialogue consisting of mutual listening and sharing of information and views
by the consulting body and the group(s) or individual(s) being consulted
(e.g. workshops on specific topics for specific themes or interest areas)
|
|
|
|
For this process, meaningful consultation should
include but not be limited to the following:
|
|
|
|
Establishing
a stakeholder liaison committee consisting of representatives from the local
community and the City of Ottawa to liaise with the proponent and its
consultants and have dialogue with government reviewers, at all stages in the
EA.
|
WM has committed to developing a Public Advisory
Committee (PAC) consisting of a group of community stakeholders from the
broader community, not the local community.
|
Section 12.2
|
|
Conducting consultations on the work plans for the
specific impact assessment studies – early in the EA, before those studies
commence.
|
Consultations on work plans early in the EA before
studies commence is not specifically discussed in the final ToR.
|
|
|
Establishing milestones for tabling a draft of the
EA for public comment
|
WM has committed to certain key milestone dates.
|
Section 12.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
newsletters/newspaper
supplements that would serve to provide interested stakeholders with more
detail than they would receive in a standard EA newspaper notice, but less
detail than in an EA report component
|
WM has committed to using various methods of
information distribution.
|
Section 12.2
|
|
identifying and reaching
out to interested citizen organizations to provide presentations or EA
updates
|
Public Dialogue Information Sessions and engagement
in an interactive manner is addressed in the Consultation on the Terms of
Reference Supporting Document.
|
Section 11.3 of the Consultation Supporting Document
|
|
central public information
centre where people can arrange to visit the proponent’s operations to learn
more about the EA, read reports, drop off comments, etc.
|
WM intends to develop a Project web site for posting
of EA related information.
No specific discussion of a
physical information centre.
|
Section 11.5 of the Consultation Supporting Document
|
|
workshops with neighbours
to enable them to meaningfully provide detailed input against each of the
milestones, or on EA impact assessment work plans.
|
Community/Public Dialogue Information Sessions are
specifically addressed in the Consultation of the Terms of Reference
Supporting Document
|
Sections 10.4.2 and 11.3 of the Consultation
Supporting Document
|
|
plan to resolving issues with stakeholders
|
Public information sessions will be offered
throughout the EA. These information
centres will be developed based on input from participants to facilitate a
positive conversation with all stakeholders.
The initial information sessions will provide an opportunity for WM and
area residents to collaboratively outline a process for ongoing informal
dialogue related to the WM Ottawa WMF.
In response to stakeholder comments, WM will seek to form a PAC as
part of the EA. The role of the PAC
will be to review and provide comment on all WM submissions prepared as part
of the EA, for which public comments are being requested.
Issue resolution with stakeholders is not
specifically discussed in Section 12.2.
|
Section 12.2
|
|
process identified for
tracking – and sharing – issues and proponent responses to those issues so
that all interested parties can participate in tracking how the proponent is
addressing issues as the EA progresses
|
WM intends to develop a web site for posting of EA
related information.
No specific discussion of issue
tracking process.
|
Section 11.5 of the Consultation Supporting Document
|
|
provisions (or funding) for
independent advice to be made available to stakeholders to help them
understand the EA process
|
|
|
|
provisions (or funding) for independent peer reviews of the EA
criteria, impact assessment study work plans, or EA impact assessment reports
|
|
|
|
reports to committees of Council and City Council
|
|
|
|
provisions for reports/ presentations/ workshops for
local environmental and community organizations that might normally be very
interested in a EA of this nature (e.g. Ottawa Sierra Club, community
associations)
|
Enhanced public consultation is specifically
discussed in the Consultation on the Terms of Reference Supporting Document
|
10.4.2 of the Consultation Supporting Document
|
|
provisions for those
immediately impacted by mitigation measures, impact management measures or
possible compensation program(s) to be involved in consultation on the
details of same
|
A monitoring
strategy for impact management measures has been provided in the ToR.
Possible
compensation programs are not discussed in the ToR
|
Section 11
|
File
No. W21-06-07-CARP/45838
12
February 2007 VIA FACSIMILE AND E-MAIL
Ms. Hayley Berlin
Project Officer
Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Assessment and Approvals
Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5
FAX (416) 314-8452
Dear Ms. Berlin:
Re: Environmental Assessment – Proposed Terms
of Reference (January 2007)
Waste Management of Canada
Corporation
Ottawa Waste Management Facility,
Ottawa, Ontario
Introduction
The
City of Ottawa (City) recently received from Waste Management of Canada
Corporation (WM) proposed Terms of Reference (ToR) to complete an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for its Ottawa Waste Management Facility (Ottawa WMF). The ToR are stated to have been prepared
pursuant to subsection 6(2)(c) of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), with items listed in subsection
6.1(2) but varied as permitted by subsection 6.1(3) of the EAA. This EA is being
prepared by WM in order to provide additional waste disposal capacity at, or in
the vicinity of, its Ottawa WMF.
This
letter and attachments provides the City’s comments on the ToR. These comments have been compiled from staff
in the City’s Public Works and Services, Community and Protective Services and
Planning, Transit and Environment Departments.
As the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is aware, however, the 30-day
period allotted for receipt of comments is insufficient in terms of the amount
of time required for review, consideration and formal approval of such comments
by the City’s Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) and Council. It is expected that of these comments will
be considered by PEC on March 27, 2007 and forwarded to Council for approval on
April 11, 2007.
Ongoing Landfill Gas
Odours
Before
embarking on our analysis of the ToR, the City wishes to draw the Minister’s
attention to the ongoing landfill gas odours which have been documented by the
community in 2006-2007 and which have been brought to the attention of both the
City and MOE abatement staff. We
understand that WM is actively working under a voluntary compliance plan to
implement various control measures associated with this problem. The City requests the MOE ensure that the
operational effectiveness of the landfill gas and odour control systems is
addressed.
High Priority Issues
This
letter outlines the City’s high-priority issues in order to facilitate the
MOE’s review of the City’s comments and to focus attention on those issues that
are considered by the City to be most significant. For ease of reference, the City’s requested amendments to the ToR
have also been summarized in a list of all requested amendments to the ToR
(Appendix #1).
The
Contents of the Environmental Assessment Document (Section 4 of the TOR)
The
City understands that it is WM’s intent to incorporate elements of a full EA
analysis within the confines of a focused EA, as described in WM’s reference to
Section 6(2)(c), 6.1(2) and 6.1(3) of the EAA.
However,
the City submits, consistent with its comments on the draft Terms of Reference,
that a full EA under subsections 6(2)(a) and 6.1(2) of the EAA is
warranted, considering the unsubstantiated need for the size of the expansion,
and to evaluate a more extensive range of “alternatives to” the proposed
undertaking.
The City respectfully
requests the Minister of Environment to exercise her approval authority to
amend the ToR by directing WM to prepare an EA under
subsection 6(2)(a), and 6.1(2) of the EAA.
In
concert with the City’s recommendation for a full EA, the following comments
are provided in response to WMI ToR as follows.
Waste Diversion –
Opportunity Assessment (Section 3.2 of the ToR) and Description of the Proposed
Undertaking (Section 5.1 of the ToR)
In
sections (c) and (d) of the Opportunity Assessment, WM states that additional
waste disposal capacity at or in the vicinity of the Ottawa WMF will permit WM
to expand customer services to promote diversion and recycling at the source
and at the Ottawa WMF. WM also states
that it will enhance its commercial operations by providing services supporting
waste diversion processing facilities. In its Description of the Proposed
Undertaking, WM states that the proposed undertaking will include “a
combination of on-site facilities to form an integrated waste management
facility.” While the City is supportive
of these intentions, WM has not provided any explanation as to any legal,
economic or physical barriers preventing these works from being initiated at
the present time.
The City requests that WM provide
a clear explanation of its current waste diversion efforts with its current
customer base and at the current site of the Ottawa WMF in the ToR and the
EA. WM has not explained or provided
any strategies or plans as to how waste diversion is undertaken with their
current customers, how “last chance harvest” efforts are organized at the Ottawa
WMF on an on-going basis and only from that, what residual landfill tonnage
will be required. WM has not provided
any data as to their annual tonnages relative to overall waste diverted from
the current landfill. The City submits
that only “residual waste” required from WM’s various waste diversion
initiatives should provide a basis for additional waste disposal capacity. As per the Minister’s statement in the
Legislative Assembly’s Question Period of 1 March 2006, WM must be able to
sufficiently demonstrate that “(those) alternatives
have to be clean, and they can’t discourage the use of waste reduction, reuse
and recycling”. It is the City’s submission that the ToR, as currently
drafted, does not provide enough information on its current waste diversion
efforts relative to establishing a need for the proposed undertaking.
As such, the City requests the
Minister to exercise her approval authority under section 6(4) of the EAA to
amend the ToR to direct WM to provide information about its current waste
diversion efforts with its customer base and at the Ottawa WMF in order to
establish a need for the proposed undertaking.
Description and
Rationale for “Alternatives to the Undertaking (Section 6 of the ToR) and
Description and Rationale for “Alternatives Methods” of Carrying Out the
Undertaking (Section 7 of the ToR)
WM
has identified four “alternatives to” the undertaking:
1)
do nothing;
2)
export to disposal capacity outside of
the City;
3)
waste combustion with energy recovery
(EFW) at, or in the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF; and
4)
develop new landfill disposal capacity
at, or in the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF.
With
respect to item 3) above, the City respectfully notes that this “alternative
to” is to be considered in combination
with new landfill disposal capacity.
This premise is developed and underlies the rest of the ToR document,
including the alternative methods.
However, WM has not provided any explanation or underlying reasoning as
to why waste combustion must be considered in combination with landfill
disposal. Also, the ToR does not
provide a preliminary estimate of the percentage of incoming waste that will be
combusted relative to the amount directed to landfill. In other words, WM has not explained whether
combustion will be a primary or secondary mode of waste management at the
Ottawa WMF. Again, the need for landfill should be predicated upon the residual
amount of solid waste remaining from waste diversion activities, and net of
diverted and reduced volumes arising from the EFW process.
As
is, the City is concerned about the seriousness of item 3) above by WM, given
that there are very few references throughout the document to the waste
combustion and EFW facility, its potential air emissions and alternative
methods concerning wastewater treatment and residual ash disposal.
This
is of concern to the City, particularly, since WM has decided to seek its Environmental Protection Act (EPA) approval and additional approvals concurrently
with its Environmental Assessment Act
(EAA) approval.
As
per section 4.2.5 of Code of Practice for
Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario (Draft October
2006), WM is entitled to offer a reasonable range of alternatives. However, WM also needs to provide in clear
language the rationale for inclusion and exclusion of its “alternatives to” the
undertaking. This rationale has not
been clearly articulated in the ToR.
Furthermore, WM has not provided any planning studies or any other
supporting materials (e.g. business plans) to demonstrate that certain
“alternatives to” have been discarded through careful consideration, to assist
in the justification of completing the EA under subsection 6(2)(c) of the
EAA. If WM is relying on the City’s
Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP)
to provide such planning rationale, then it needs to clearly articulate this
reliance, and provide information about the IWMMP, its consultation and
adoption by Council in the EA.
If
WM is prepared to provide a waste combustion and EFW alternative, it should be
assessed as a bona fide waste
combustion alternative with EFW. As
such, the City recommends that the ToR clearly include a stand-alone waste
combustion with EFW alternative at, or in the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF,
without automatic resort to new or additional landfill disposal capacity.
This
fifth additional alternative could be easily considered along with the waste
combustion and EFW with landfill alternative currently being proposed by
WM.
In
summary, the City submits that WM should be directed to evaluate two
“alternatives to” involving waste combustion and EFW: (1) stand-alone waste
combustion with EFW and (2) waste
combustion with EFW combined with new landfill disposal capacity.
Three
new alternative methods would also
be required to be added to the ToR to evaluate any waste combustion and EFW alternatives. Such alternative methods would require WM to examine (1) the
beneficial re-use, on or off-site, of non-hazardous residual waste ash
generated from combustion processes; and (2) on-site disposal of hazardous
residual waste ash generated from combustion processes, (3) off-site disposal
of hazardous residual waste ash generated from combustion processes, or (4)
on-site treatment of the hazardous residual waste so as to render it
non-hazardous.
Given that the ToR
should be consistent with the purpose of the EAA and the public interest,
the City respectfully requests the
Minister of the Environment to exercise her approval authority under section
6(4) of the EAA, to amend the ToR by directing WM to examine two waste
combustion “alternatives to” the undertaking: (1) a stand-alone waste
combustion with EFW and (2) waste combustion with EFW combined with new
landfill disposal capacity. Further,
the City requests that Minister amend the ToR by adding the above-noted
“alternative methods” associated with any and all waste combustion with EFW
alternatives within the ToR.
With
respect to item 4) above, “Develop new landfill disposal capacity at, or in the
vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF”, the City understands that Waste Management
Inc.’s (WMI) service portfolio includes research into landfill bioreactor
technology.
WMI
is conducting a bioreactor research and testing program through a Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement involving joint research with WMI and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Information provided on their http://www.WM.com/
website indicates that they are presently
researching bioreactors at ten of their landfills across the United States. Two
test cases that are highlighted on the WMI website include the Maplewood
Landfill and King George Landfill.
Given that WM has
access to and should benefit from expertise of its parent company and
affiliated companies, the City requests that the Minister exercise her amendment authority to
direct that bioreactor technology be evaluated as an alternative method of
carrying out the new landfill disposal capacity – whether stand-alone or in
combination with waste combustion with EFW.
Such bioreactor landfill technology alternative methods include (1)
aerobic design, (2) anaerobic design or (3) hybrid design using sequential
aerobic and anaerobic design zones.
Environmental
Assessment Methodology (Section 9 of the ToR)
There
is very little discussion in the ToR of the types of methods (qualitative or
quantitative) that will be used to comparatively evaluate the environmental
effects associated with the various “alternatives to” and “alternative
methods”. WM states that the “study
methods to be used will conform to commonly acceptable industry and government
practices.” However, the development of
the criteria and methodology to be used are critical components of the public
consultation process and need to be identified in the ToR. WM has not completed any prior consultation
on these methods.
The City respectfully
requests the Minister of Environment to exercise her approval authority to
amend the ToR by directing WM to provide an initial consultation milestone
specifically on the environmental assessment criteria that have been developed,
and the comparative methods used to evaluate the environmental effects
associated with the various “alternatives to” and “alternative methods.”
With
regard to page 19, Section 9.1, item 5) and page 20, Section 9.2, item 5) of
the ToR, WM has not explained what it considers to be “reasonable mitigation methods.”
Reasonable mitigation methods may be viewed and interpreted differently
by WM, the public, the City, the MOE, the Public Advisory Committee and other
Government Review Team members. Do
reasonable mitigation methods imply something that is technically feasible and
approvable, or does economic judgement also play a role in this evaluation, or
both? What is defined as a reasonable mitigation method could potentially have
a significant impact on the assessment of net environmental effects associated
with the various “alternatives to” and “alternative methods”, and further
presupposes approvability outside of the EAA in light of the statute references
noted in Section 13 of the ToR.
The City respectfully
submits that reasonableness should therefore be determined through consultation
with the MOE, other Government Review Team members, the Public Advisory
Committee, the City and the public. The
City further recommends that the EA should identify gross effects on the
environment first and then net effects following implementation of “reasonable”
mitigation methods.
On
page 21 at Section 9.3 in the last paragraph of the ToR, it is stated that “the
criteria, study areas, and study data sources are not intended to be
absolute. If significant new issues or concerns arise during the course of the
detailed assessment of the undertaking, WM
will be flexible in considering their inclusion”. However, there is no definition provided for the word
“significant”.
The City respectfully
submits that significance should be determined through consultation with the
MOE, other Government Review Team members, the Public Advisory Committee, the
City and the public. The City further
recommends that if any new issues or concerns are deemed through such
consultation to be “significant”, then WM should be required to include them in
the assessment, not simply consider their inclusion.
Consultation (Section
12 of the ToR)
Although
WM did provide an earlier draft Terms of Reference in January 2006 for public
comment and review, that document was substantially different in intent than
the ToR document provided in January 2007.
WM has now described their current EA approach as wanting to conduct a
focused full EA. The City continues to support a full EA process. However, the
earlier Terms of Reference cannot be used as a basis by WM to justify its lack
of consultation on the concerns, review analysis and methodology prior to the
submission of this ToR for EAA approval.
WM
has not referenced either the Code of
Practice - Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario (Draft
October 2006) nor the Code of
Practice – Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process (Draft
October 2006) in the ToR. These documents are the latest guiding policy
directives from the MOE for proponents engaged in an environmental assessment
process. The City has reviewed Figure 2
of the Code of Practice – Consultation,
which outlines Minimum Consultation Requirements (Attachment #3). Given the Provincial policy directives, it
is surprising that the ToR do not identify the first mandatory point of
consultation where WM, the Public Advisory Committee or the public-at-large
will identify concerns, develop alternatives and provide comments on the
evaluation criteria and methodology prior to submission of the ToR. With regard to the latter document, in
Section 1.3, it is not understood how WM has demonstrated through the ToR
process how “goals and objectives are jointly developed by the community and
the proponent”, given that the goals of WM and those of the local community are
divergent at this point in time. There
is also no identification of Supplementary Consultation Activities in the ToR,
although WM does indicate that the consultation plan may be altered during the
EA.
As per the City’s
prior comment, the City respectfully requests the Minister of Environment to
exercise her approval authority under subsection 6(4) of the EAA, to amend the
ToR by directing WM to provide a an initial consultation milestone specifically
on the environmental assessment criteria that have been developed, and the
comparative methods used to evaluate the “alternatives to” and “alternative
methods.”
Further,
WM has not provided an issues resolution strategy as part of its consultation
plan outlined in the ToR and the forthcoming EA. This is recommended in the Code
of Practice - Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario
(Draft October 2006). Moreover, WM
has received considerable indications of opposition to its proposed undertaking
as documented in its Supporting Document
– Consultation on the Terms of Reference.
The establishment of a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) with professional
facilitation may address some of the community’s concerns. However, due to the ongoing presence of
landfill gas odours in the community, the significant increase in proposed annual
residual waste tonnage and the planning timeframe of a 25-year capacity, the
establishment of a PAC may not address all of the community’s concerns.
The City therefore
respectfully recommends that the Minister exercise her approval authority to
amend the ToR to direct WM to include an issue and dispute resolution strategy
as a critical component of its consultation plan.
Rejection of the ToR
as submitted by WM
At
this point, the City has identified a number of high priority issues with the
ToR document submitted by WM. There is
a lack of documentation, explanation, and consultation associated with the ToR
to enable the City to have confidence that the focused list of “alternatives
to” the proposed undertaking and “alternative methods” of carrying out the
undertaking have been sufficiently justified by WM in the document. The City respectfully reminds the Minister
that the Minister must be fully satisfied that the ToR are consistent with the
purpose of the EAA and in the public
interest. As a result, the City reminds
the Minister that it is within her authority to either reject the ToR as either
being incomplete at this time or approve the ToR, so long as the EA is
conducted in accordance with subsection 6.1(2) of the EAA. Alternatively,
the Minister may approve the ToR with, at a minimum, the long list of
amendments recommended by the City in this letter and in Appendix 1.
Transportation and the
Carp Airport (Appendix A of the ToR)
Odour and Air Quality
Assessment Concerns (Appendix A of the ToR)
In
the latter half of 2006 and early 2007, the City and the MOE have received a
substantial number of landfill gas-related odour complaints concerning WM’s
Ottawa WMF. Odour complaints have also
been tracked and detected in a wide radius from the Ottawa WMF. On January 25, 2007, staff from the local
district office of the MOE met with the Coalition
of Citizen Groups & Volunteers Representing the Community, west-end
Councillors and staff to outline a plan of action to resolve this problem. This situation, combined with the
problematic draft Terms of Reference released for comment in January 2006, has
sensitized citizens of Ottawa to landfill gas odours and concerns regarding
local and Provincial waste management and diversion policy.
Moreover,
the current odour impacts affect the ToR as presently drafted, since WM has
proposed to use 2006 as a baseline year
and only reference the operating
landfill to conduct its baseline environmental impact assessments in its
ToR and the EA. With respect, environmental
impacts, including but not limited to landfill gas odours and air quality
emissions, may be derived from the Ottawa WMF as a whole, not just the
operating landfill. Further, the City
is not in favour of the use of 2006 as a baseline year for potential odour
impacts associated with the proposed undertaking, given the large number of
complaints associated with 2006.
As
such, the City recommends that the ToR clearly identify all potential
environmental effects, including but not limited to landfill gas odour-causing
compounds and potential air quality emissions, from the entire Ottawa WMF. The Air
Quality Assessment should be widened to the “In the Community” study area,
to take into account the currently affected communities of Stittsville and portions
of western Kanata.
The City respectfully
respects the Minister exercise her approval authority to amend the ToR to
ensure that an appropriate compliant baseline year or other benchmark metrics
be applied by WM in specific regard, but not limited to, the potential odour
impacts and Air Quality Assessment. In
addition, the entire Ottawa WMF should be assessed with regard to all
environmental effects, and that the Air
Quality Assessment include the “In the Community” study area.
Technical Attachments
For
ease of reference, the City has attached a short list of all of staff’s
requested amendments to the ToR to this letter (Appendix #1). An Appendix #2 is included referencing the
draft minimum consultation requirements. The attached table (Appendix #3) also
provides a detailed description of the City’s comments on the ToR on a
section-by-section basis.
Conclusion
As
previously noted, the City’s Planning and Environment Committee of Council will
be considering these comments on March 27, 2007 with the anticipated Council
approval to follow on April 11, 2007.
Any changes to staff’s comments or Council resolutions related to the WM
Ottawa WMF will be forwarded to you for the MOE’s consideration as soon as possible
after the Council meeting.
In
the interim, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have
any questions or concerns about the City’s comments.
Yours truly,
Original signed by
R.G. Hewitt. P.Eng.
Deputy City Manager
Public Works and Services
Author’s Name & Title
Attach. (3)
|
cc:
|
Kenneth J. Brothers, Director, Utility Services Branch
M. Rick O’Connor, City Solicitor, Legal Services Branch
|
City of Ottawa
Recommendations regarding
Amendments to the
Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) Proposed Terms of Reference (ToR) –
Ministerial amendments under section 6(4) of the
Environmental Assessment Act
1. The City supports a full EA, consistent with
subsection 6(2)(a) and 6.1(2) of the EAA to adequately assess the broad
range of “alternatives to” the undertaking.
2. The EA shall provide information about WM’s current
waste diversion efforts with its customer base and at the Ottawa WMF in order
to establish a need for the proposed undertaking.
3. In
consideration of “alternatives to” the undertaking, WM add a stand-alone waste combustion
with Energy From Waste (EFW) alternative.
Alternatively, direct WM to evaluate two alternatives involving
waste combustion: (1) waste combustion with EFW and (2) waste combustion with EFW combined with new
landfill disposal capacity.
a. Add
the resulting “alternative methods” associated with any waste combustion
alternative being (1) the beneficial re-use, on or off-site, of non-hazardous
residual waste ash generated from combustion processes; and (2) on-site
disposal of hazardous residual waste ash generated from combustion processes,
(3) off-site disposal of hazardous residual waste ash generated from combustion
processes, or (4) on-site treatment of the hazardous residual waste so as to
render it non-hazardous.
4. In
consideration of “alternatives to” the undertaking, the EA shall evaluate
bioreactor technology as an alternative method of carrying out the new landfill
disposal capacity – whether stand-alone or in combination with waste combustion
with EFW.
a. Add
bioreactor landfill technology alternative methods such as (1) aerobic design,
(2) anaerobic design and (3) hybrid design using sequential aerobic and
anaerobic design zones.
5. The
EA shall provide an initial consultation milestone specifically on the
environmental assessment criteria that have been developed, and the comparative
methods used to evaluate the environmental effects associated with the various
“alternatives to” and “alternative methods.”
6. The
EA should determine or assess “reasonable mitigation methods” through
consultation with the MOE, other Government Review Team members, the Public
Advisory Committee, the City and the public.
7. The
EA should identify gross effects on the environment first and then net effects
following implementation of “reasonable” mitigation methods.
8. The
“significance” of new issues, arising from the detailed assessment work, should
be determined through consultation with the MOE, other Government Review Team
members, the Public Advisory Committee, the City and the public. Should any new issues or concerns be deemed
through such consultation to be “significant”, these issues are required to be
addressed in the detailed assessment work.
9. WM
should be required to include an issue and dispute resolution strategy as a
critical component of its consultation plan.
|
Document Reference
|
Staff Comments on Waste Management (WM)
Environmental Assessment - Terms of Reference (ToR)
|
|
Specific Comments
|
Type of Comment
|
|
1. Introduction
|
·
Page 1,
second paragraph – should be “continue to accept non-hazardous solid waste”.
·
Page 1,
second paragraph – The definition of “Eastern Ontario” and its relation to
WM’s service area needs to be explained.
|
|
|
2. Proponent –
Waste Management of Canada Corporation
|
|
|
|
3. Purpose of the Proposed Assessment
|
|
|
|
3.1 Problem Assessment
|
|
|
3.2 Opportunity Assessment
|
·
On page 7, parts (c) and (d) of the
Opportunity Assessment, WM states that additional waste disposal capacity at
or in the vicinity of the Ottawa WMF will permit WM to expand customer
services to promote diversion and recycling at the source and at the Ottawa
WMF. WM also states that it will
enhance its commercial operations by providing services supporting waste
diversion processing facilities. In its Description of the Proposed
Undertaking, WM states that the proposed undertaking will include “a
combination of on-site facilities to form an integrated waste management
facility.” While the City is
supportive of these intentions, WM has not provided any explanation as to any
legal, economic or physical barriers preventing these works from being initiated
at the present time.
|
|
|
4. The Contents of the Environmental Assessment
Document
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1 Description of the Proposed Undertaking
|
·
Page 9,
paragraph 2, last line - Inclusion of references to landfill gas utilization
facilities is not required in this section since WM has already embarked on
this project, nor – to the City’s understanding – are these facilities proposed
for lands not currently owned or controlled by WM.
·
Page 9 – the
proposed undertaking is defined as “to provide additional waste disposal
capacity at, or in the vicinity of, the WM Ottawa WMF”. The final sentence states “The
description of the proposed undertaking will be further refined during the EA”.
Thus, the definition of the undertaking is preliminary and will be finalized
during the EA. Later, in Section 9.3
of the ToR, it states that “WM may determine, at its sole discretion, that
a preferred alternative is not commercially viable, in which case WM may
choose not to carry forward that preferred alternative for approval”. Thus, as per Section 4.2.10 of the Code of
Practice, and notwithstanding WM’s reference to flexibility in Section 9.3,
page 21, second paragraph of the ToR, it is assumed that if the proposed
undertaking or the preferred alternative method of carrying out the
undertaking is not to its satisfaction, WM will not proceed with
approval. Thus, it the carries
forward that a new ToR would be required under such circumstances.
|
|
|
5.2 Rationale for the Proposed Undertaking
|
·
Page 9, first and third paragraph – Traffic and
Parking Operations note that WM is proposing a change in annual volumes of
waste from 450,000 tonnes to 600,000 tonnes, a potential 33% increase in
truck traffic. The origin and
potential impacts of this truck traffic will need to be examined in the Transportation
Assessment.
·
Page 10,
first bullet - The fact that WM’s site is currently designated on the City’s
Official Plan is irrelevant in justifying the rationale for the undertaking
in the ToR.
·
Page 10,
part (a) - An explanation of the use of 2005 as a base line year for WM’s
inventory of waste generation, diversion and disposal would be appreciated in
the EA.
|
·
New comment
·
New comment
·
Positive
change
|
|
6. Description
and Rationale for “Alternatives To” the Undertaking
|
·
Missing
alternative – stand-alone waste combustion EFW facility. This could be easily studied along with
the waste combustion EFW facility and new landfill disposal capacity
alternative being proposed by WM.
·
The City submits that WM should be directed to evaluate two
“alternatives to” involving waste combustion and EFW: (1) stand-alone waste combustion with EFW and (2) waste combustion with EFW combined with new landfill disposal
capacity.
·
Three new alternative methods
would also be required to be added to the ToR to evaluate any waste combustion and EFW
alternatives. Such alternative
methods would require WM to examine (1) the beneficial re-use, on or
off-site, of non-hazardous residual waste ash generated from combustion
processes; and (2) on-site disposal of hazardous residual waste ash generated
from combustion processes, (3) off-site disposal of hazardous residual waste
ash generated from combustion processes, or (4) on-site treatment of the
hazardous residual waste so as to render it non-hazardous.
|
·
High
priority comment
·
New comment
·
High
priority comment
·
High
priority comment
|
|
7. Description
and Rationale for “Alternative Methods” of Carrying Out the Undertaking
|
·
Page 13 –
Alternative landfill footprints – are there technical reasons as to why one
or more of the proposed footprints could not be combined? If so, these should have been explained by
WM in the ToR.
·
Pages 13-14
– There are more possible site access alternatives, such as from Richardson
Side Road or directly from Highway 7.
If such options have been discarded for reasons known to WM – such as
the need to preserve buffer lands - then these should be explained in the
ToR.
·
Pages 13-14 - Traffic and Parking
Operations note that the various site access alternatives require more
detailed review in the future, such as the need for dedicated turning lanes
or intersection modifications, MTO approval and possible capacity issues.
·
Page 14 – If
thermal combustion is chosen alone or in combination with landfill disposal,
there may be other potential sources of wastewater handling and treatment
that needs to be considered in addition to leachate treatment alternatives.
|
|
|
8. Description
of Environment Potentially Affected by the Proposed Undertaking
|
|
|
|
9.
Environmental Assessment Methodology
|
|
|
|
9.1 Evaluation of “Alternatives To”
|
|
|
|
9.2 Evaluation of “Alternative Methods”
|
·
Page 21, first full paragraph – The ToR state that “The baseline
conditions for the impact assessment will account for the ongoing operation
of the existing waste management facilities and surrounding land uses. The baseline year for the existing
facilities will be 2006, unless otherwise stated. The impact assessment will assume baseline conditions only of
the operating landfill”. With respect, environmental impacts,
including but not limited to landfill gas odours and air quality emissions,
may be derived from the Ottawa WMF as a whole, not just the operating
landfill, and the City is not in favour of the use of 2006 as a baseline year
for potential odour impacts associated with the proposed undertaking.
|
|
|
10. Community
Commitments Agreement
|
|
|
|
11. Monitoring
Strategy
|
|
|
12. Consultation on the Terms of Reference
|
·
Section 12 –
WM has not referred to the Code of
Practice for Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process
(Draft), October 2006.
WM responded to this same comment on the
draft ToR by indicating that it did not see the purpose in referencing the
prior Guide (December 2000) – now the draft Code of Practice.
However, the Code of Practice
commits the proponent to doing many things during the consultation process
that the proponent should acknowledge and adhere to. With regard to Section 1.3 of the Code of
Practice pertaining to characteristics of strong consultation, it is not understood how WM has
demonstrated through the ToR process how “goals and objectives are jointly
developed by the community and the proponent”.
The public consultation that has taken
place to date, particularly with respect to members of the local community
living in proximity to the WM Ottawa WMF, has established that there are
divergent goals and objectives between WM and the public. How will future consultation ensure that common goals and objectives are
jointly developed by the community and WM?
The City respectfully requests that the first milestone consultation
on the concerns, review analysis, environmental assessment criteria and
methodology take place as per Figure 2:
Minimum Consultation Requirements of the Consultation Guide. The City also requests that the Minister
amend the ToR to include an issues and dispute resolution strategy as a
critical component of its consultation plan.
|
|
|
12.1 Consultation on the Terms of Reference
|
|
|
|
12.2 Consultation Plan for the EA
|
|
|
|
12.3 First Nations Consultation
|
|
|
|
13. Other Approvals
|
|
|
|
List of Figures
|
|
|
|
Appendix A Environmental Assessment Criteria and
Studies
|
|
|
