|
|
|
|
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS, AS AMENDED
That Council endorse the comments contained in Document 1 as the City’s comments on Waste Management of Canada Corporation’s Proposed Terms of Reference for an Environmental Assessment of a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre, and direct staff to forward the approved comments to the Ministry of the Environment and Waste Management of Canada Corporation, as amended by the following:
1. That the City of Ottawa urges the Minister require Waste Management to modify its terms of reference in accordance with the comments contained in the staff report and any amendments or additions to those comments approved by this Council.
2. That a meeting of Ottawa City Council representatives and City of Ottawa staff with the Minister of the Environment and Ministry staff is organized as soon as possible in order for the Ottawa contingent to explain the City’s position.
3. That the Ministry put in place programs and policies necessary to move the ICI sector from its current 17-per-cent diversion rate to the Ministry’s target of 60-per-cent diversion before considering new or expanded landfills to dispose of residual ICI wastes.
4. That if the proposed terms of reference aren’t rejected, the City of Ottawa’s comments include the following statements on the proposed terms of reference, and that the City encourages the Minister to include these principles as requirements in the finalized terms of reference for the EA:
a) Waste Management must conduct a full EA to ensure the examination of all major issues, including demonstrating that all alternative disposal techniques are not feasible before a new or expanded landfill is considered;
b) The “Good Neighbour Zone,” as described in the terms of reference, is defined as the geographical boundaries of the City of Ottawa and the County of Lanark;
c) ICI, residential, and construction waste and contaminated soils can only be accepted at the Carp Road facility if they originated from the City of Ottawa or the Good Neighbour Zone as defined above;
d) Waste Management must develop a program to assure there will be no future ground water impact by conducting an in-depth study to identify and develop an comprehensive ground water protection and monitoring program;
e) Waste Management must conduct an in-depth study to identify and develop a program to immediately report any evidence of ground water contamination to the City of Ottawa and the public in a timely manner;
f) Waste Management must conduct an in-depth study to identify and develop a fulsome program to address and compensate for all property value impacts within a one-kilometre radius of Waste Management’s Carp Road lands;
g) The terms of reference must include, and the EA must assume, a requirement that as ICI diversion per centage rates increase in the Ottawa area and Good Neighbour zone, the total allowable tonnage accepted at the landfill, if approved, would decease at the same per centage rate from a start total of 400,000 tonnes per year;
h) Waste Management must develop a program to provide an annual report to the City of Ottawa on all requirements of any certification of approval provided by the Ministry should approval be granted;
i) Waste Management must conduct an in-depth study to identify and develop a fulsome program to report all odour and litter complaints to the City of Ottawa and the public, including time and location of the complaint, nature of the compliant, when the compliant was responded to, how the problem was, or will be, addressed, and when the problem was addressed;
j) Waste Management must conduct an in-depth study during the EA to forecast all potential economic impacts of any potential expansion of its operations on Carp Road businesses and identify and develop a comprehensive program to mitigate the impacts, and/or compensate area business owners if mitigation attempts fail;
k) Waste Management must facilitate a broad public consultation process during all stages of the EA involving a broad representation of interested parties, including, but not limited to, community associations, environmental and public health organizations, the City, conservation authorities, and any other party that expresses an interest in participating;
l) Waste Management must, as part of the broad public consultation, establish a stakeholder liaison committee consisting of representatives from the local community and the City of Ottawa to facilitate the flow of information during the EA process, including regular meetings for Waste Management to provide updates on progress and issues related to the EA, including, but not limited to, any evidence that affects any of the assumptions or conclusions contained in the terms of reference;
m) Waste Management must conduct broad public consultation on work plans for all specific impacts assessment studies in the EA before the studies start;
n) Waste Management must conduct further public consultation, and the City and the public must be given time to make submissions to the Ministry on any amended terms of reference Waste Management may file in the future; and
o) Waste Management must fund an independent review by independent experts, chosen by the City in conjunction with the stakeholder group, on all aspects of the EA and the results of the EA, updates on this review must be filed with the Ministry and given to the City of Ottawa and the stakeholder liaison committee members regularly, and the final review report must be filed with the Ministry and given to the City of Ottawa and the stakeholder liaison committee members in a timely manner.
5. That the City of Ottawa’s comments on the proposed terms of reference include that Waste Management must delete all references to the past agreement in its terms of reference.
6. That if Waste Management refuses to delete all references to the past agreement in its proposed terms of reference, the City of Ottawa urges the Ministry of the Environment to order them deleted and put no weight on them during any part of the EA process including finalization of the terms of reference.
7. That, in order to provide a level playing field for the affected communities, the City of Ottawa commit up to $75,000 from the Solid Waste reserve fund to be distributed to community groups in the area surrounding the Carp Road facility to help the groups retain experts to assist them during the EA process; and
8. That Staff be delegated the authority to determine which groups receive money and ensure that appropriate rules with respect to the distribution and usage of the funds are followed.
RECOMMANDATIONS MODIFIÉES DU COMITÉ
Que le Conseil municipal avalise les commentaires contenus dans la pièce jointe 1 en tant que commentaires de la Ville sur les paramètres proposés pour une évaluation environnementale de la superficie d'un nouveau site d'enfouissement au centre environnemental de West Carleton et d’enjoindre le personnel de les faire parvenir au ministère de l’Environnement et à Waste Management of Canada Corporation, modifié également de la façon suivante:
1. Que la Ville d’Ottawa demande avec instance que Waste Management modifie son cadre de référence conformément aux commentaires formulés dans le rapport du personnel et aux ajouts et modifications apportés à ces commentaires approuvés par le Conseil.
2. qu’une rencontre soit organisée le plus tôt possible entre les membres du Conseil municipal d’Ottawa et les membres du personnel et le ministre de l’Environnement et les membres de son personnel afin que les représentants d’Ottawa expliquent le point de vue de la Ville.
3. que le ministre mette en place les programmes et politiques nécessaires pour que le taux de réacheminement des déchets industriels, commerciaux et institutionnels passe de 17 % à un objectif ministériel de 60 % avant de penser à créer de nouveaux sites d’enfouissement ou à agrandir les actuels pour l’enfouissement des déchets industriels, commerciaux et institutionnels.
4. qui, si le mandat proposé est adopté, les commentaires de la Ville d’Ottawa comprendront les déclarations suivantes à propos du mandat proposé, et que la Ville incite le ministre à inclure les principes suivants dans la version définitive du mandat au sujet de l’évaluation environnementale (EE):
a) Waste Management doit effectuer une évaluation environnementale complète afin de s’assurer que toutes les principales questions sont examinées, notamment la démonstration que toutes les autres techniques d’élimination ne sont pas réalisables avant que ne soit considérés la création d’un nouveau site d’enfouissement ou l’agrandissement du site actuel.
b) La « zone de bon voisinage », telle que décrite dans le mandat, est définie comme étant les frontières géographiques de la Ville d’Ottawa et du Comté de Lanark.
c) Les déchets industriels, commerciaux, institutionnels, résidentiels et découlant des activités de construction, ainsi que les sols contaminés, ne seront acceptés qu’à l’installation du chemin Carp, à la condition qu’ils proviennent de la Ville d’Ottawa ou de la zone de bon voisinage décrite ci-dessus.
d) Waste Management doit mener une étude approfondie visant à définir et à mettre en place un programme complet de protection et de surveillance des eaux souterraines afin de veiller à ce qu’elles ne soient pas contaminées.
e) Waste Management doit effectuer une étude approfondie afin de définir et de mettre en place un programme visant à signaler le plus rapidement possible, à la Ville d’Ottawa et au public, tout signe de contamination des eaux souterraines.
f) Waste Management doit effectuer une étude approfondie dans le but de définir et de mettre en place un programme complet visant à régler et à indemniser toutes les répercussions sur la valeur des propriétés situées dans un rayon d’un kilomètre des terrains du chemin Carp appartenant à Waste Management.
g) Le mandat doit comprendre, et l’EE doit adopter une exigence selon laquelle à mesure que s’accroît le pourcentage de détournement des déchets industriels, commerciaux et institutionnels dans la région d’Ottawa et de la zone de bon voisinage, le tonnage total admissible accepté au site d’enfouissement, s’il est approuvé, soit déduit proportionnellement d’un tonnage possible de 400 000 tonnes par année.
h) Si l’approbation est accordée, Waste Management doit mettre en place un programme dans le but de présenter à la Ville d’Ottawa un rapport annuel sur toutes les exigences relatives aux certificats d’approbation émis par le ministre.
i) Waste Management doit effectuer une étude approfondie afin de définir et de mettre en place un programme complet visant à signaler toute plainte faites à la Ville d’Ottawa et au public au sujet d’odeurs ou d’ordures, notamment le temps et le lieu de la plainte, la nature de la plainte, le moment où la plainte a été répondue, les solutions et le moment où le problème a été réglé.
j) Waste Management doit effectuer une étude approfondie pendant l’EE afin de prédire toutes les répercussions économiques possibles découlant d’une expansion éventuelle des activités des entreprises situées sur le chemin Carp et pour définir et mettre en place un programme complet afin d’atténuer ces répercussions ou indemniser les propriétaires des entreprises de la région si les mesures d’atténuation n’atteignent pas leur but.
k) Waste Management doit favoriser un vaste processus de consultation publique pendant toutes les phases de l’EE auquel participera une grande représentation des parties intéressées, comprenant, sans s’y limiter, des associations communautaires, des organisations environnementales et de santé publique, la Ville, les offices de la protection de la nature et toute autre partie intéressée à participer.
l) Dans le cadre de la vaste consultation publique, Waste Management doit mettre sur pied un comité de liaison avec les intervenants, qui réunira des représentants de la communauté locale et de la Ville d’Ottawa, afin de favoriser la communication de l’information au cours du processus de l’EE, notamment des réunions régulières qui permettront à Waste Management de faire des mises à jour sur les progrès et les questions reliées à l’EE, comprenant, sans s’y limiter, tout élément de preuve concernant les hypothèses ou les conclusions contenues dans le mandat.
m) Avant de commencer les études, Waste Management doit mener une vaste consultation publique sur les plans de travail concernant toutes les études d’évaluation des répercussions spécifiques dans le cadre de l’EE.
n) Waste Management doit mener une autre consultation publique, et la Ville et le public doivent disposer d’un délai nécessaire pour faire des suggestions au ministre concernant toute modification du mandat que Waste Management pourra déposer à l’avenir.
o) Waste Management doit financer un examen indépendant fait par des experts indépendants, choisis par la Ville de concert avec le groupe d’intervenants, sur tous les aspects de l’EE et les résultats de l’EE; des mises à jour de cet examen doivent être envoyées régulièrement au ministre, à la Ville d’Ottawa et au comité de liaison avec les intervenants; le rapport d’examen final doit être envoyé dans les délais impartis au ministre, à la Ville d’Ottawa et au comité de liaison avec les intervenants.
5. que les commentaires de la Ville d’Ottawa à l’égard du cadre de référence proposé visent la suppression par l’entreprise Waste Management de tous les renvois à l’entente précédente dans son mandat.
6. que si l’entreprise Waste Management refuse de supprimer tous les renvois à l’entente précédente dans le cadre de référence qu’elle propose, la Ville d’Ottawa demande avec instance au ministère de l’Environnement d’ordonner la suppression de ces renvois et de ne pas en tenir compte tout au long du processus d’EE, y compris à l’étape de la rédaction définitive du mandat.
7. qu’afin d’uniformiser les règles du jeu en faveur des collectivités touchées, la Ville d’Ottawa s’engage à distribuer jusqu’à 75 000 $, à même le fonds de réserve pour la gestion des déchets solides, auprès des groupes communautaires du secteur entourant l’installation du chemin Carp, afin de les aider à obtenir l’aide de spécialistes tout au long du processus d’EE; et
8. que le personnel détienne le pouvoir de déterminer quels groupes recevront de l’argent et qu’il s’assure du respect des règles appropriées en ce qui a trait à la distribution et à l’utilisation des fonds.
DOCUMENTATION
1. Deputy City Manager’s report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 5 July, 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0023).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes dated 13 July 2010.
Report to/Rapport au:
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
5 July 2010 / le 5 juillet 2010
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d 'infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Dixon Weir, General Manager/Directeur general
Environmental Services/Services environmmenmentaux
(613)580-2424 x22002, Dixon.Weir@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council endorse the comments contained in Document 1 as the City’s comments on Waste Management of Canada Corporation’s Proposed Terms of Reference for an Environmental Assessment of a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre, and direct staff to forward the approved comments to the Ministry of the Environment and Waste Management of Canada Corporation.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil municipal d’avaliser les commentaires contenus dans la pièce jointe 1 en tant que commentaires de la Ville sur les paramètres proposés pour une évaluation environnementale de la superficie d'un nouveau site d'enfouissement au centre environnemental de West Carleton et d’enjoindre le personnel de les faire parvenir au ministère de l’Environnement et à Waste Management of Canada Corporation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) proposes to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) for an expansion of the company’s Carp Road facility, including a new landfill footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC). The new landfill will be one component of the proposed WCEC that will include recycling and composting facilities.
The first step in the application for approval to proceed with an undertaking under the Environmental Assessment Act is the approval of a Terms of Reference (ToR) by the Minister of the Environment. The ToR provides the framework for what will be studied in the EA and the public consultation that will occur. WM submitted their proposed ToR to the Minstry of the Environment (MOE) on June 18, 2010. Members of the public, agencies and the City of Ottawa have until July 19, 2010 to submit comments on the ToR.
Staff has conducted a thorough review of the Waste Management’s ToR. On the whole, the ToR is well written and comprehensive. More details of the staff comments on the draft ToR are provided in the body of this report and the entirety of the comments are contained in Document 1 of this report.
Legal/Risk Management Implications:
There are no Legal/Risk Management Implications.
Technical Implications:
There are no Technical Implications.
Financial Implications:
There are no direct financial implications to the City with respect to WM’s proposed ToR. The City anticipates future review work during the EA will consume staff time and external consulting services.
Public Consultation/Input:
WM carried out a public consultation program prior to the ToR being submitted to the MOE. The ToR proposes a public and agency consultation program to be carried out during the EA.
Public Consultation by City staff was not conducted in the writing of this report.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse:
Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) propose de réaliser une évaluation environnementale (EE) pour une entreprise projetée qui consisterait à accroître la superficie au sol de la décharge à l'actuelle Installation de gestion des déchets d'Ottawa. La nouvelle décharge serait l'une des composantes du futur Centre environnemental de West Carleton, qui comprendra des installations de recyclage et de compostage.
La première étape du processus d'approbation d'une demande visant une entreprise régie par la Loi sur les évaluations environnementales consiste à faire approuver par le ministre de l'Environnement un cadre de référence, lequel détermine les points qui seront étudiés au cours de l'EE et les consultations publiques qui se tiendront. WM a présenté son cadre de référence au ministère de l'Environnement le 18 juin 2010. Les membres du public, les organismes concernés et la Ville ont donc jusqu'au 19 juillet 2010 pour présenter leurs commentaires s'y rapportant. Les commentaires du personnel municipal sont formulés dans le document 1.
Incidences juridiques / concernant la gestion des risques:
Il n'y a aucune incidence juridique ou en matière de gestion des risques.
Incidences techniques:
Il n'y a aucune incidence technique.
Répercussions financières:
Le cadre de référence proposé par WM n'a aucune incidence financière directe pour la Ville. La Ville prévoit que l'examen à venir du cadre de référence nécessitera du temps de la part du personnel municipal, ainsi que des services externes de consultation, à déterminer.
Consultation publique / commentaires:
WM a appliqué un programme de consultation publique avant de présenter le cadre de référence au ministère de l'Environnement. Le cadre de référence comporte un programme de consultation du public et des organismes concernés au cours de l'EE.
Il y a eu aucune consultation publique dans la préparation de ce rapport.
BACKGROUND
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, develop and enhance waste diversion, including the Waste Diversion Act, 2002. In June 2004, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) released a Discussion Paper and conducted public consultation sessions on how to achieve the Provincial-wide goal of 60% waste diversion in both municipal and industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) sectors with extensive discussions on several key topics such as:
· Accelerating centralized composting for residential waste;
· The feasibility of phasing-in a ban on disposal of key organics and recyclable materials;
· Renewing commitment on IC&I 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.
However, the Province has not taken any substantive action directing the IC&I sector to meet the 60% diversion goal, nor has it progressed beyond guidelines for diversion relating to municipal solid waste.
In 2009, the Province again initiated a public consultation program associated with possible changes to the Waste Diversion Act. Broad sector consultation occurred in late 2009, including a consultation session hosted at the City of Ottawa City Hall. The City submitted comments on the proposed changes to this Act by way of Council endorsed position (Report No. ACS2010-ICS- ESD-0008). Unfortunately, the Act has not progressed further than the consultation phase.
The EA to be completed for Waste Management’s WCEC will proceed within the current Provincial waste diversion policy regime and under the current EA process discussed below.
Environmental Assessment Process
The Environmental Assessment Act 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 implementation of any significant works.
In developing the EA process, the Province has determined the various steps of the process, including 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, a municipality in which a proposed landfill is situated is one key stakeholder amongst a variety of other stakeholders and provides its comments on the EA process to both WM and the Minister of Environment.
Further, the MOE allows proponents to “focus” EAs. The following is excerpted from the MOE Code of Practice, Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario:
Defining that the environmental assessment is to be prepared in accordance with 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act (that is, including more or less of the generic requirements outlined in subsection 6.1(2)) is commonly known as “focussing” though the term is not used in the legislation. The elements of the environmental assessment that is prepared under subsection 6.1(3) should not differ drastically from the generic elements outlined in subsection 6.1(2), and the proponent must be clear in the terms of reference about what will be different. Justification for following subsection 6(2)(c) must be provided in the proposed terms of reference and is subject to the Minister’s approval.
The Code of Practice goes on to say:
The content of each terms of reference will differ based on the proposed undertaking, or the problem or opportunity. The content and amount of detail identified in a terms of reference will also differ based on how far in the planning process the environmental assessment process was intiated.
The EA process and timelines are graphically summarized in the following flow chart.
Terms of Reference Content
In general, a ToR identifies the purpose of a proposal, provides a general description of both the proposal and the environment that may be potentially affected by a landfill expansion and activities, outlines 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 or develop any or all mitigation requirements. Rather, the EA process is intended to examine and assess all aspects of the undertaking identified in the approved ToR.
The ToR also includes a description of the consultation that will take place during the preparation of the EA.
Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Review Process
WM published a Notice of Commencement on April 13, 2010 indicating their intention to expand the Carp Landfill Site. WM formally submitted its proposed ToR for an Environmental Assessment of a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre on June 18, 2010. Notification of the submission was published in local newspapers and provided on the project website, through e-mail distribution and letters to neighbours and stakeholders.
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 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, the Minister must make a decision about the proposed ToR within twelve (12) weeks of the commencement of regulated timelines. The Minister’s decision is invalid even if the decision was not made before the applicable deadline. There are provisions within the Environmental Assessment Act and the deadline regulation to 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 MOE’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch (EAAB) may also choose to extend the approval deadlines, if extraordinary circumstances exist to justify the extension.
An approved ToR will represent an agreement between WM and the Minister about the work that is required during the EA to determine the potential impacts of a landfill expansion proposal on the environment and mitigation measures. 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 on the approval or rejection of the EA. 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 EA. This step will involve conducting various studies and assessment identified as necessary assessments in the EA ToR. The proponent will create various teams such as a government review team (GRT), public advisory, and technical advisory committees among others to help ensure that potential issues are identified and resolved. This step of the EA is the longest in duration as it involves the preparation of many studies and may involve consultation at the discretion of WM. This step does not have any prescribed timelines and will likely take one to two years to complete. There is the possibility that issues not previously identified in the ToR may require investigation in the EA to allow for flexibility. WM’s ToR proposes a consultation plan for the EA that includes workshops, open houses, round table discussions and technical sessions.
Submission of the EA Document
Once all of the work outlined in the ToR is completed, the proponent, WM must submit the now comprehensive Environmental Assessment report to the MOE. 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 whether the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act 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 stipulate 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 hearing to the public. 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 within 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 Environmental Assessment Act. The Act requires public notice of the ToR, notice to the Clerk of a municipality, notice to other persons, public inspection, approval, and mediation among other consultation initiatives. This obligation is interpreted in detail in the document entitled: Code of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process (MOE, June 2007).
Related Information
City of Ottawa Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP)
The City’s waste management strategy is based on the IWMMP. The IWMMP established the City’s residential waste diversion strategy and addresses the role of landfills for the City. In summary, on April 9, 2003, Council approved that the City:
· Retain its two landfill sites in public ownership;
· Continue to reserve landfill disposal capacity for locally-generated solid waste;
· Recognize the value of conserving landfill capacity;
· Consider the export of residential waste where economics warranted;
· Endorse public consultation, involvement and education as essential to sustain waste management diversion at higher levels; and
· Monitor, test, evaluate and implement initiatives that leverage technology or environmental benefits over the course of the Plan.
Residential Waste Diversion Strategy
The City has established a target of 60% diversion of the residential waste stream from disposal. This target is in alignment with the MOE’s target of 60% diversion of all waste streams in the province. The City currently provides the following diversion (recycling) services to residents:
· Blue and Black Box recycling;
· Green Bin collection;
· Take-it-Back program;
· Household Hazardous Waste Depots;
· Giveaway Weekends; and
· Yellow Bag program for small businesses.
With the implementation of the Green Bin program in January 2010, the residential diversion rate has reached 42%. This rate is expected to gradually increase as participation in the Green Bin program increases over time.
Plasco Waste to Energy Project
The City is committed to investigating alternative technologies to landfill disposal. In accordance with this strategy, the City has partnered with Plasco Energy Ottawa Inc. to demonstrate gasification technology on residential waste. The demonstration facility, located adjacent to the City’s Trail Waste Facility, has been accepting up to 85 tonnes per day of residential waste since January 2008. The City continues to negotiate with representatives from Plasco on the Long-Term Waste Conversion Agreement in accordance with Council’s approval of June 2, 2008.
Plasco continues operation of its demonstration facility on Trail Road and is providing data to the MOE. Based on this data, the MOE will make a determination on the acceptability of environmental performance of Plasco’s technology.
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector
Diversion 2015 is a strategic plan by the City of Ottawa to reduce the flow of Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (IC&I) waste to municipal and private landfill sites. The City’s ability to direct and control the overall IC&I waste management system is minimal. A realistic and sustainable IC&I waste management strategy must therefore focus on those portions of the system that are within the City’s direct control and on areas where the City can have some influence. The City’s approach is to educate the IC&I sector about existing programs, lobby for legislative change, assist in market development and lead by example by implementing waste diversion programs in City facilities.
DISCUSSION
WM proposes to complete an Environmental Assessment for an expansion of the company’s Carp Road facility, including a new landfill footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre. The new landfill will be one component of the proposed facility that will include recycling and composting.
The first step in the application for approval to proceed with an undertaking under the Environmental Assessment Act is the approval of a Terms of Reference by the Minister of the Environment. The ToR provides the framework for what will be studied in the EA and the public consultation that will occur. WM submitted their proposed ToR to the Ministry of the Environment on June 18, 2010. Members of the public, agencies and the City of Ottawa have until July 19, 2010 to submit comments on the ToR.
WM’s ToR proposes to address the following components of the environment that may be affected by the proposed undertaking:
· Atmosphere;
· Geology and Hydrogeology;
· Surface Water;
· Biology;
· Archaeological/Cultural Heritage Resources
· Transportation;
· Land Use;
· Agriculture;
· Socio-economic; and
· Aboriginal Issues.
A more detailed description of the scope of work of each of these potentially impacted areas is contained within the ToR.
Comments on WM’s ToR
Staff conducted a thorough assessment of the ToR document released by WM. This assessment is a critical component in the City’s review of the environmental soundness of WM’s proposal. The review included comments received from Environmental Services, Legal Services, Planning and Growth Management and Community Sustainability. The assessment has been conducted from a technical and objective perspective to ensure that the application addresses the full spectrum of issues ranging from environmental impact, social and economic sensitivity, and community partnerships to legislative and regulatory requirements.
Many recent landfill proposals conducted in Ontario have proceeded as focused or scoped EA’s. WM has stated that its intent is to conduct a focused EA. The MOE needs to closely assess WM’s rationale for a focused EA in its review of the ToR. In developing the rationale for the undertaking within the ToR, WM has identified the following:
“a sustainable market opportunity to provide an average of 400,000 tonnes of landfill disposal capacity annually. When converted to volume over a 10 year period, including cover material, it is estimated that the proposed WCEC will be required to provide up to 6.5 million cubic metres of landfill disposal capacity airspace.”
WM has also identified five potential undertakings for consideration, including:
- Alternative 1 – Do nothing.
- Alternative 2 – Develop a thermal destruction (waste to energy) disposal facility at the WCEC.
- Alternative 3 – Close the current landfill and establish new landfill disposal capacity at the WCEC.
- Alternative 4 – Establish a new landfill elsewhere.
- Alternative 5 – Export waste to other disposal facilities.
Through the supporting documentation contained within the ToR, WM has identified Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative.
Staff’s detailed comments on WM’s ToR for Committee consideration and Council approval are provided in Document 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 generally met the requirements of the EA guidelines; however, there are several areas of the ToR where clarification, further detail, and more robust analysis is required in order to ensure all potential impacts of WM’s expansion plans are identified and mitigated.
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.
Future Steps & EA Timeline
Next Steps – City of Ottawa
Following formal consideration and approval of the attached City’s comments at the July 14, 2010 Council meeting, including any amendments, the City’s comments will be forwarded to the MOE for consideration for inclusion in the finalized ToR.
Staff will continue to follow WM’s progress through the EA process, and it is anticipated that staff will bring forward future reports on any other comments thorough the various stages.
Next Steps – WM
The ToR, as required, has been posted on the Provincial Government’s Environmental Registry to start the mandatory 12 week review period. 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 timeframe is followed, the Minister’s decision on the ToR will be forthcoming in mid-October. At that point, the Minister’s decision may be to either approve the ToR, 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.
Following submission of the City’s comments on the ToR, there are two more statutory-mandated opportunities to provide comments to the MOE (once on the Ministry Review of the EA document) and WM (once on the EA) in the EA process.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
The Environmental Assessment Act sets forth a broad planning framework to allow the implementation of major proposals, such as the one pertaining to WM’s Proposed Terms of Reference for an Environmental Assessment of a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre. 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.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
Residential, industrial, commercial and institutional waste from both rural and urban areas is accepted at WM’s Ottawa Waste Management Facility (WMF) located on Carp Road, which is the same location of the study area that is subject to the ToR and the eventual EA.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR
Comments on this report from the Councillor for Ward 4 will be issued separately.
The Councillor for Ward 5 is aware of this report, invites people to attend the committee meeting to make their views on Waste Management’s plans known, and will be bringing forward motions on this issue at the committee meeting.
The Councillor for Ward 6 is aware of this report, his comments will be issued separately, and he will be bringing motions relating to this issue to the meeting.
The Councillor for Ward 21 is aware of this report.
The Councillor for Ward 23 is aware of this report.
CONSULTATION / PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
WM consulted with a broad range of stakeholders on the content of the ToR, including review agencies, Aboriginal communities, residents near the Carp Road facility and the general public, Federal ministries and departments, Provincial ministries, City of Ottawa, conservation authorities, emergency services, school boards and utilities.
On April 13, 2010, WM publicly announced its EA through a Notice of Commencement. In conjunction with the Notice, WM notified neighbours and the community of the proposed undertaking through a news release, hand delivered letters, a newsletter, notification on the project website and advertisements in the local newspapers. Comments received from the public, community organizations, the City of Ottawa and agencies were reviewed by WM and responded to.
During the development of the ToR, a wide variety of consultation activities were carried out by WM as part of preparing the ToR including the following:
· Public Advisory Committee;
· Open House Meetings in six different locations;
· Workshops in three different locations;
· Question and Answer session;
· Meetings and Presentations with interested stakeholders;
· Project Website;
· Project Email and Toll-free Telephone Number; and
· Newsletters.
All comments received by WM through their various consultation activities have been summarized and are included in the ToR.
On June 18, 2010, WM formally submitted ToR to the MOE. Notification of this submission was published in local newspapers and provided on the WM project website, through e-mail distribution and letters to neighbours and stakeholders. Following preparation of the ToR, the ToR was also submitted to review agencies, Aboriginal communities and the public for review and comment. WM also notified stakeholders through a Notice and news release, mailed letters to review agencies and other interested stakeholders, and posted advertisements in local newspapers. These Notices outlined the availability of the ToR for review and how comments could be provided. Copies of the ToR were provided to review agencies, the City of Ottawa and Aboriginal stakeholders and placed at public record locations.
The ToR proposes a public consultation plan for the EA phase of the undertaking. This consultation plan will be reviewed by the MOE during their review of the ToR.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
The legal process for an environmental assessment is set out in this report under the heading Environmental Assessment Process. The role of the City in this process is that of a government providing comments on this application rather than of an approval authority.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
There are no implications to the City Strategic Plan.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
NA
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.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Staff Comments on Proposed Terms of Reference for an Environmental Assessment of a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – June 2010
DISPOSITION
Environmental Services to submit approved comments to the Ministry of the Environment for consideration.
DOCUMENT 1
Staff Comments on Proposed Terms of Reference
For an Environmental Assessment of a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre
Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM)
June 2010
|
ToR Section
|
Page |
Comment |
|
1. Introduction |
1 |
· The first paragraph indicates that the new landfill footprint will be within the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (WMF) boundary. It is noted per Figure 1 that the existing Ottawa WMF is part of the overall project study area boundary. The first paragraph also states that the new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC), which will include several integrated waste management facilities as identified in bullets one through five. If the new landfill footprint is to be located within the existing Ottawa WMF, however, this necessarily implies an expansion of the existing landfill as opposed to establishment of a new landfill footprint, and therefore precludes the assessment of potential candidate new landfill footprint locations elsewhere in the project study area. Thus, based on the first sentence of the ToR, the undertaking ought to be an expansion of the existing landfill at the Ottawa WMF as opposed to establishment of a new landfill footprint, and the ToR should not use the term “new landfill footprint” as there is no intent to search for such a new landfill footprint elsewhere in the project study area. Further, the WCEC is a contingent facility that currently does not exist and may not exist pending approval of the “new landfill footprint”, and as such use of this term in the ToR should be carefully reconsidered as it is misleading in terms of actual commitment (refer to Section 5.1 – Alternative 1 – Do Nothing) and applied commitment (refer to Section 10.1 – ToR and EA Commitments) · Fifth bullet – “…disposal of residual waste materials” should be “…disposal of post-diversion municipal solid waste.” This is an important distinction and the change should be made globally in the ToR. |
|
1.1 Background |
3 |
· Third sentence – “WM is preparing to undertake an EA to develop a new landfill footprint to provide waste disposal capacity at the WCEC.” WM has indicated previously in Section 1.0 of the ToR that “residual waste”(i.e. post-diversion municipal solid waste) is intended to be disposed of in the new landfill footprint as a component of the WCEC. However, use of the expression “waste disposal capacity” without a clear definition of what the waste will consist of is misleading. This comment applies to a number of different areas of the ToR (e.g. second paragraph of Section 2.2, first sentence of Section 2.4). |
|
1.2 The Proponent – Waste Management of Canada Corporation |
3 |
· Second paragraph gives the impression WM has handled 50% of the residential stream and 7,500 IC&I customers. This is misleading. “Historically” should be defined prior to 2007. |
|
1.3 Overview of Ontario Environmental Assessment Act Requirements |
4 - 5
|
· The third sentence in the first paragraph on p.4 containing the phrase “….in order to address its specific circumstances….” needs to be clarified. What is meant by this? · Should clearly state that clause 6(2)(c) of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, under which the ToR have been prepared, provides for a focused or scoped EA, by requiring the proposed ToR to “set out in detail the requirements for the preparation of the environmental assessment.” · WM has chosen a scoped EA for the purpose of rationale/need (business decision) and alternatives but is voluntarily including a broader technical analysis for the EA. · Item a)., p.4 - should be re-worded to read “A detailed description…” · Add new item, p.4 - i). a description of net effects that may remain after application of mitigation measures – re-letter the ensuing items. · Second bullet, top of p.5 – this needs to be clarified as to how the assessment will address “…other non-WCEC projects/activities existing, planned and approved or reasonably foreseeable.” Consider ending sentence after “components.” · Last paragraph on p.5 – reference date of document entitled Code of Practice for Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process is incorrect. Should be June 2007. |
|
1.4. Justification for Submitting a Focused Terms of Reference |
5 - 6 |
· First and second sentences on p.6 – “WM’s decision to proceed with the proposed project is in the interest of the public” and “SD#1 describes the general lack of waste disposal capacity in Ottawa, which is predicted to increase with time”. Is the interest of the public served by increasing “waste disposal capacity” or “post-diversion municipal solid waste disposal capacity”? The basis of public interest is therefore unclear, and it is important to distinguish between the two. If one of the purposes of the undertaking per the fifth bullet of Section 1.0 of the ToR is to establish “a new landfill footprint for disposal of residual waste materials”, would it not follow that disposal of residual waste (post-diversion municipal solid waste) is what is in the interest of the public, not waste in general? · Fourth sentence on p.6 – Should the 60 percent IC&I diversion target not be both the Province’s and the City’s goal? Should it also not be WM’s goal? · The justification for the “focused” approach to this EA seems limited. Should be more comprehensive.
|
|
1.5 Statement of Environmental Values |
6 |
|
|
1.6 Purpose and Organization of this Terms of Reference |
6 - 8 |
· First paragraph on p. 6 - amend to read - “…a framework for the preparation and review of the EA and these proposed ToR have been prepared….” |
|
1.7 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act |
8 |
· The CEAA may apply if a Federal authority determines that it applies, depending on the types of activities/work related to the proponent’s undertaking. The ToR state that it is unlikely that a Federal EA will be required but it is possible. If a Federal Screening EA is required, the need for the project (i.e. the activities subject to the Federal EA) may be a required factor to be considered if so determined by the responsible authority. |
|
2. Development of the WCEC Proposal |
9 |
|
|
2.1 Previous Studies and Terms of Reference Submitted |
9 - 10 |
· First paragraph, p. 9, seems superfluous. · Second bullet on p.10 – Does the Community Liaison Committee have a role in EA consultation? The CLC is not clearly defined in SD#3 Appendix B. |
|
2.2 Developing a New Proposal |
10 - 11 |
· Second paragraph on p.10 – should be “minimize” not “minimized.” |
|
2.3 Overview of the WCEC |
11 –13 |
· Question - does this EA have a Designation Order or Voluntary Agreement? Should explain. · Second paragraph p.12 - define "diverting as much waste as is feasible." Organics Processing Facility not required as there is substantial organics processing capacity in Ottawa. |
|
2.4 Proposed New Landfill Footprint |
13 - 14 |
· This section speaks to a leachate collection and monitoring system; however, there is no mention of treatment or disposal of this material. The disposal of leachate to the City’s sewage works is prohibited unless done so under a Leachate Agreement. Note that the City is under no obligation to negotiate such an agreement. Should they choose to do so, the leachate must meet the discharge limits prescribed in the City of Ottawa Sewer Use by-law and the discharge may be subject to volumetric limits based on sewer capacity. |
|
2.5 Key Differences from Previous Proposal |
14 - 16 |
· Table 1 should be re-titled “ Key Differences Between 2007 ToR and 2010 ToR.” · Within Table 1: - Item 1 - revise Comments/Action to read “….revise the total proposed new/additional landfill volume….” Also, revise Item 1 to read Reduction in Landfill Capacity. - Item 2 – What does “stand alone” mean? If the thermal option has already been dismissed on the basis of SD#2 as a potential “Alternative To”, why as per Section 1.3 of the ToR does WM commit to preparing and submitting an EA for review and approval that contains “d) The alternatives to the undertaking, as described in Section 5 of these ToR”? This implies that all “Alternatives To” will receive full treatment during the EA process. Item 2 - "The thermal option does not represent a viable alternative…" This is confusing. Is the thermal option under consideration or not? - Item 3 - suggest revise to read “….confirmed and will be adjusted, as warranted….” |
|
3. Purpose of the Proposed Undertaking |
17 |
· First sentence – “The purpose of the proposed undertaking is to provide additional disposal capacity for solid non hazardous waste at the WCEC in the form of a new landfill footprint, in order to allow WM to continue to manage it current commercial operations and support the continuation of its business operations”. This differs from previous descriptions of the proposed undertaking (i.e. Sections 1.0, 1.1). The purpose of the undertaking needs to be consistently expressed throughout these ToR in order to eliminate any confusion or uncertainty as to what is being proposed. · The bullet list provided (p. 17) should coincide with the bullet list provided in Section 1.0, p. 1. |
|
4. Description of and Rationale for the Undertaking |
18 |
|
|
4.1 Overview of the Rationale |
18 |
|
|
4.2 Problem and Opportunity Assessment |
18 - 22 |
· First sentence – “…we limited the waste disposal needs assessment to the Ottawa area.” This should read “…the post-diversion municipal solid waste disposal needs assessment was limited to the Ottawa area.” · First sentence, second paragraph p.19 – “WM is also aware of the need to provide increased diversion facility capacity in Ontario, in particular to accommodate the desired and anticipated increase in diversion from the IC&I sector”. What is the intended service area for waste that is intended to be managed by diversion facilities to be established at the WCEC? · If, as per the first two sentences of the third full paragraph on p.20, the existing five disposal sites in the Ottawa area will provide all of the disposal capacity for waste generated within the City of Ottawa during the planning period (i.e. 10 years), how does WM rationalize the purpose of the undertaking as expressed in the first sentence of Section 3.0 (Purpose of the Proposed Undertaking)? · What service area will actually be requested if the needs assessment is limited to the Ottawa area? The City diverts 42% of the residential waste stream, not 38%. This number is expected to increase as participation in the Green Bin program grows. Define Good Neighbour Zone. |
|
Waste Generation, Diversion and Disposal in Ottawa |
18 - 19 |
· The last paragraph of Section 4.2 (“Based on the projections…..were disposed.”) is confusing and should be clarified. |
|
Role of the WM Ottawa WMF |
19 - 20 |
· Last sentence – “…there is a need to develop additional waste disposal capacity”. This should read “…there is a need to develop additional post-diversion municipal solid waste disposal capacity.” In any event, WM has not proven that there is a need for additional post-diversion municipal solid waste disposal capacity vis a vis ongoing landfill diversion improvements in the Ottawa area.
|
|
The Opportunity |
20 - 22 |
|
|
5. Consideration of Alternatives To the Undertaking |
23 |
|
|
5.1 Step 1 – Identify Alternatives To |
23 - 24 |
· WM is not currently licensed as a transfer station. This needs to be clarified in the ToR. A Certificate of Approval is required if a transfer station is to be established. · Section 5.0 of the ToR discuss “Alternatives To” the undertaking and provides reasons for selecting the one alternative that would be the subject of the EA. Consideration of “Alternatives To” is only in the ToR as background information and will not form part of the EA. |
|
Alternative 1 – Do Nothing |
24 |
· Last sentence in first paragraph under Alternative 1 – Do Nothing – if the WCEC is contingent upon approval of a new landfill footprint, the first sentence of Section 3.0 (Purpose of the Proposed Undertaking) is misleading in that it suggests that the purpose of the undertaking is directly related to the WCEC, which will be evaluated as part of the EA. |
|
Alternative 2 – Develop a Thermal Destruction (Waste to Energy) Facility at WCEC |
24 - 25 |
|
|
Alternative 3 – Close the Current Landfill and Establish New Landfill Disposal Capacity at the WCEC |
25 |
|
|
Alternative 4 – Establish a new Landfill Elsewhere |
25 |
|
|
Alternative 5 - Export Waste to Other Facilities |
25 - 26 |
· Last sentence of continued paragraph top of p.26 re: “The availability of potential locations in Ottawa and eastern Ontario is very limited”. This section is written as if “waste disposal capacity” per se is limited whereas the ToR as previously discussed is intended to address residual waste disposal (i.e. post-diversion municipal solid waste). As such, the accuracy of the comment needs to be verified on this basis.
|
|
5.2 Step 2 – Apply Screening Questions |
26 - 27 |
|
|
5.3 Step 3 – Select Preferred Alternative |
27 |
· The purpose of this section should be to state/describe the “Alternatives To” that will be considered in the EA and to state the methodology that will be used to select a preferred “Alternative To” in the EA (e.g. screening questions and how they will be applied, etc.). This section as written goes on at length describing work that apparently has been completed, to select the preferred “Alternative To”. Question: If the intent, as stated in Section 1.3 of the ToR, is to “focus” the EA by not including alternative sites/locations, why are new potential landfills elsewhere (Alternative 4) included for review in the “Alternatives To”? |
|
Alternative 1 – Do Nothing |
27 |
|
|
Alternative 2 – Develop a Thermal Destruction (Waste to Energy) Facility at WCEC |
27 - 28 |
|
|
Alternative 3 – Close the Current Landfill and Establish New Landfill Disposal Capacity at the WCEC |
28 - 29 |
|
|
Alternative 4 – Establish a new Landfill Elsewhere |
29 |
|
|
Alternative 5 - Export Waste to Other Facilities |
29 - 30 |
|
|
Summary of Selection of Preferred Alternative |
30 - 31 |
|
|
6. Description of and Rationale for “Alternative Methods” of Carrying out the Undertaking |
32 - 33 |
· Top of p.33 second sentence – “A detailed comparative evaluation of alternative landfill footprints will be conducted a detailed impact assessment on the preferred landfill footprint will be carried out”. Explain what the comparative evaluation and impact assessment will consist of and how they will be conducted. |
|
6.1 Land Ownership |
33 |
|
|
6.2 Natural Environment Features |
33 - 35 |
|
|
6.3 Land Use Constraints |
35 |
|
|
6.4 Perimeter Buffer Zones |
35 |
· 100 meter buffer is insufficient. MOE best practice suggests a 500 meter minimum. |
|
6.5 Envelopes for Potential Development |
35 - 36 |
|
|
7. Existing Environmental Conditions |
37 |
|
|
7.1 Study Areas |
37 |
· Should list what environmental components will be addressed in each of the three study areas, or state that each component will be addressed within the context of each study area. |
|
On-Site |
37 |
|
|
Site-Vicinity |
37 |
· Suggest that the Site-Vicinity Study Area should be 1 km. |
|
Regional |
37 |
|
|
7.2 Environmental Components |
38 |
· Add new environmental component bullet: “Design and Operations Considerations” (i.e. conceptual design). · The groundwater referred to in the groundwater remediation and management strategy is currently discharged to the City sewer system as part of the leachate agreement between WM and the City of Ottawa for the landfill that is scheduled to close. This Agreement may have to be renegotiated and may be subject to quantity limitations based on sewer capacity. |
|
7.3 Existing Environmental Conditions |
38 |
· To reflect Section 7.2 and Appendix B of the ToR, add text to describe “Design and Operations Considerations” (i.e. conceptual design). |
|
Land Use, Agricultural, Socio-Economic, Archaeological/Cultural |
38 - 39 |
|
|
Transportation |
39 |
|
|
Atmospheric (Air Quality, Odour and Noise) |
40 |
|
|
Biology (Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment) and Surface Water |
40 |
|
|
Hydrogeology/Groundwater |
40 - 41 |
|
|
7.4 Additional Field Work and Studies |
41 |
|
|
8. Environmental Assessment Methodology |
42 |
|
|
8.1 Evaluation of “Alternative Methods” |
42 |
· Delete first sentence and the four bullets. Start the section with “The comparative evaluation methodology….” · Add new Item 3 re: mitigation measures. Re-number ensuing items. · Following MOE regulations for conducting EAs and running the AERMOD dispersion model is satisfactory. The fact WM will be working closely with MOE for the EA gives the City a level of comfort needed for this project. What is not clear from the report is what WM monitors currently: VOCs, CH4, NOx, PM10 or PM2.5? WM offers to do on-site monitoring but does not identify what will be monitored nor how.
· The following parameters should be included when measuring the economic impacts of this project:
· What are the linkages/benefits with existing businesses, if any, along the Carp Road corridor? |
|
8.2 Detailed Assessment of the Undertaking |
43 |
· The methodology of how the “Alternative Methods” will be evaluated – e.g. qualitative and quantitative assessments should be described in greater detail in this section |
|
9. Consultation Plan |
44 |
· Suggest referencing the EA Code of Practice and Consultation Code of Practice. |
|
9.1 Consultation on the ToR |
44 |
|
|
9.1.1 Stakeholders |
44 |
· Last bullet p. 44 - delete “Métis National Council” and add “Ottawa Métis Council” |
|
9.1.2 Consultation Activities |
45 |
|
|
9.2 Summary of issues and Concerns Raised during the Terms of reference Development |
46 |
|
|
9.3 Consultation Plan for the EA |
46 |
· Under sub-section “Aboriginal Communities (p. 47) delete “Métis National Council” and add “Ottawa Métis Council” |
|
9.3.1 Stakeholders |
47 |
|
|
9.3.2 Proposed Consultation Activities |
48 |
· The WM members on the PAC should be ex officio · Does the PAC have Terms of Reference governing its structure, mandate and operation? Provide in a SD. · Add a sub-section providing for an EA Technical Advisory Committee. |
|
10. Commitments and Monitoring Strategy |
51 |
|
|
10.1 ToR and EA Commitments |
51 |
· Section 10.1 refers to “WCEC EA”. This is confusing as the term has not been used elsewhere in the ToR and gives the impression that, regardless of approval of landfill expansion or a new landfill footprint, the other integrated waste management facilities described under the WCEC will be assessed as part of the EA. However, as noted in Section 5.1 of the ToR, it is understood that the other integrated facilities may not be implemented if a new landfill footprint is not approved. Further, the first sentence of Section 1.0 of the ToR indicates the “WM proposes to complete an EA for a proposed undertaking consisting of the provision of a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa WMF”. What is the subject of this EA? The WCEC or a new landfill footprint? |
|
10.2 Environmental Effects and EA Compliance Monitoring |
51 - 52 |
|
|
11. Modifications During Preparation of the EA |
53 |
|
|
12. Other Approvals |
54 |
· p. 54 – add Aggregate Resources Act to list. |
|
|
|
|
|
List of Figures |
|
|
|
Figure 1 – Existing WM Ottawa Waste Management Facility (WMF) and Study Area |
|
|
|
Figure 2 – Alternative Methods Constraints |
|
· Why is the landfill buffer area shown on the parcel west of William Mooney Drive? |
|
|
|
|
|
Appendices |
|
|
|
Appendix A – Glossary of Terms |
|
· Municipal waste should be defined in accordance with the applicable statute/regulatory/guidance definition and applied accordingly throughout the ToR. · All other terms relating to any other type of waste should be defined in accordance with applicable statute/regulatory/guidance definitions. Interpretive definitions are not acceptable. · All other terms used in the Glossary of Terms should defer to applicable statute/regulatory/guidance definitions/ Interpretive definitions are not acceptable. |
|
Appendix B – Environmental Assessment Criteria |
|
· Table B-1 – Air quality indicators should be modeled at 500 meters and 1 kilometers. Same comment re: odor. |
|
Appendix C – Environmental Assessment Work Plans |
|
· Table 1-2 - model within 500 meters, 1,000 meters along hauls routes for air, noise and odor. The study area boundaries should be established from the edge of the property boundary, not the waste footprint. Odors should be comparatively assessed relative to a greenfield site. · Table 1-4 - define “in vicinity”. · Table 1-6 - additional impacts should be extended to 3 kilometers. · Table 1-7 – “assume continued service to customers” should read west and not east of Ottawa. Local residents within 500 meters and 1,000 meters of the facility and recreational facilities within 1,000 meters of the facility. · Table 1-9 - under Transportation Work Plan, add distance along haul route and number of residents along haul route. · Attachment 10 – add incorporation of alternative daily cover techniques such as spray-on cover and tarping systems as best management practice to preserve air space for City waste. · Table 1-10 – add operational techniques to minimize use of soil-based daily cover systems, minimize the use of soil in landfill operations and maximize air space for refuse, and reduction in annual daily cover quantities. |
|
Appendix D – Community Commitments |
|
· p.3 – define the period of time that odor persists. |
|
|
|
|
|
Supporting Documents |
|
|
|
Supporting Document 1 – Rationale for the Undertaking |
|
· Section 2.4.1 – second paragraph - Ottawa diverted 32 percent. · Table 2 – cumulative annual tonnage does not include daily, interim or final cover. All should be included. |
|
Supporting Document 2 – Alternatives To the Undertaking |
|
|
|
Supporting Document 3 – Record of Consultation |
|
|