Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

13 July 2006/le 13 juillet 2006

 

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

Acting Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjoint par intérim,

Public Works and Services / Service et Travaux publics

 

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

Utility Services/Services publics

(613) 580-2424 x22609, ken.brothers@ottawa.ca

 

Ward: 2  (Innes)

Ref N°: ACS2006-PWS-UTL-0021

 

 

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) TERMS OF REFERENCE RELEASED BY WASTE SERVICES (CA) INC. FOR THE NAVAN LANDFILL.

 

 

OBJET :

COMMENTAIRES SUR LE CADRE DE RÉFÉRENCE DE L’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE (EE) PUBLIÉ PAR WASTE SERVICES (CA) INC. POUR LE SITE DE GESTION DES DÉCHETS DU NAVAN.

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council endorse the comments contained in Attachment 1 as the City’s comments on Waste Services (CA) Inc. Environmental Assessment Proposed Terms of Reference for the Navan Landfill, and direct staff to forward the approved comments to the Ministry of the Environment and Waste Services (CA) Inc. for consideration.

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil municipal de considérer les commentaires inclus dans l’annexe 1 comme les commentaires de la Ville sur le cadre de référence proposé dans l’évaluation environnementale faite par Waste Services (CA) Inc. pour le site d’enfouissement Navan et ordonner au personnel de les acheminer au ministère de l’Environnement et à l’entreprise Waste Services (CA) Inc. pour qu’ils les étudient.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Following a meeting with Waste Services (CA) Inc. (WSI) staff on 04 May 2006, staff have conducted a critical assessment of the Terms of Reference (ToR) document released by Waste Services (CA) Inc. (WSI) and provided the comments that are contained in Attachment 1.  The ToR document released by WSI is considered to be final.

 

Staff’s assessment of the ToR document, which is required as the first step, is being conducted as a focused EA and is generally in keeping with other similar landfill expansion proposals that have been conducted within the Province of Ontario in recent years. 

 

In addition, the ToR document needs to be revised to provide clarity as to the proposal, the plans for evaluation of alternatives and alternative methods and ensure that a commitment to an overall EA monitoring strategy is undertaken.  The documentation is incomplete and requires supporting documentation and a commitment to a more extensive consultation process through the formation of Public Liaison / Advisory, Technical Advisory and Community Liaison / Communications Committees.

 

WSI declined a request by the City to release a draft ToR document and wait for the City’s comments before submitting their final ToR document to the Ministry of Environment (MOE).  The posting for the ToR posting on the Environmental Registry occurred on 16 June 2006 and the 30-day period for receipt of public comments will close on 21 July 2006.  Due to this deadline, staff will submit comments on the ToR before this Report is considered by Committee and Council but will indicate that the comments are subject to ratification by Committee and Council.  Following approval of the report, staff will submit any changes to the attention of the MOE and WSI.

 

Staff met with WSI prior to and following the submission of their ToR to the MOE.  In addition, the EA for the landfill expansion is expected to be a multi-year process with several statutory and non-statutory opportunities to conduct public consultation and provide comments. 

 

 

RÉSUMÉ

 

À la suite d’une réunion avec le personnel de Waste Services (CA) Inc. (WSI), le 4 mai 2006, les employés ont effectué une évaluation critique du document sur le mandat (cadre de référence) publié par Waste Services (CA) Inc. (WSI) et ajouté les commentaires inclus à l’annexe 1. Le cadre de référence diffusé par WSI est considéré comme étant final.

L’évaluation du document par les employés, requise comme première étape, est à être effectuée comme une ÉA ciblée et correspond en général à d’autres propositions d’agrandissement de sites d’enfouissement semblables qui ont été effectuées dans la province de l’Ontario au cours des dernières années.

De plus, le cadre de référence doit être révisé en vue de clarifier la proposition, les plans d’évaluation des solutions et méthodes de rechange et de faire en sorte qu’il y ait un engagement et une stratégie générale de contrôle d’ÉA. La documentation est incomplète et requiert un engagement pour un processus de consultation plus complet en créant un comité de liaison avec le public et des consultations, ou un comité consultatif technique ou de communication et de liaison avec la collectivité.

WSI a refusé une demande de la Ville de lui remettre une version préliminaire du cadre de référence et d’attendre les commentaires de la Ville avant de présenter le cadre de référence final au ministère de l’Environnement (ME). L’inclusion du cadre de référence au Registre environnemental a eu lieu le 16 juin 2006 et la période de 30 jours pour la réception des commentaires du public se terminera le 21 juillet 2006. En raison de cette date limite, les employés enverront les commentaires sur le cadre de référence avant que le présent rapport soit examiné par le Comité et le Conseil municipal; il y aura une indication à l’effet que les commentaires sont assujettis à la ratification par le Comité et le Conseil. Après l’approbation du rapport, le personnel soumettra les changements à l’attention du ME et de WSI.

Les employés ont rencontré les représentants de WSI avant et après la présentation de leur cadre de référence au ME. De plus, l’ÉA pour l’agrandissement du site d’enfouissement devrait se faire sur plusieurs années et comprendre des occasions obligatoires et facultatives de tenir des consultations publiques et de produire des commentaires.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The proposal under the ToR is for an expansion of WSI’s Navan Landfill, located on Navan Road in Notre-Dame-des-Champs, to provide additional landfilling capacity at the existing landfill facility.  At the current filling rates and approved volumetric capacity, WSI estimates that their Ottawa facility has only five years of remaining use. The ToR document is the first in a series of steps to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA).  

 

On 8 December 2005, WSI held their first open house at the Navan Memorial Community Centre Hall, to provide general information and preliminary input into the evaluation criteria for all of the alternatives for the proposal.  A workshop on Evaluation Criteria and Indicators was held on 4 February 2005 and a second open house on 6 March 2005.  The ranking of the evaluation criteria were presented at this open house.  Solid Waste Services staff were only formally invited to this second open house.

 

On 17 May 2006, a letter was sent to WSI requesting release of a draft ToR and direction to invite the City on invitations to forthcoming open houses and workshops. This letter was also copied to the Ministry of Environment.

 

Environmental Assessment Process

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

Time Lines in the Environmental Assessment Process

 

 

ToR Preparation

 

Regulated Time Lines

 

Anticipated Time Lines (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

No Time Lines

 

12 - 52 Weeks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ToR Review and Approval

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proponent submits proposed ToR Government/Public Review (mandatory 30 day review)EAAB Analysis Minister's Decision

 

12 Weeks

 

12 - 24 Weeks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EA Preparation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proponent prepares EA and carries out mandatory public consultation

 

 

No Time Lines

 

52 - 260 Weeks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proponent submits EA*

 

Public Notice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EA Review & Approval

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Government/Public Review of EA*

 

7 Weeks

 

7 Weeks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EA Review/Notice of Completion *

 

5 Weeks

 

5 Weeks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Public Comment Period

5 Weeks

 

5 Weeks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

13 Weeks

 

13 Weeks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approve/Deny

 

 

 

 

 

 

Refer to Hearing

Minister Sets Time Lines

 

24 - 52 Weeks

 

 

Refer to Mediation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Director may issue Deficiency Statement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCE:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current stage of Ottawa WMF EA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Consultation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

As noted on the graphic, WSI is at the ToR Review and Approval stage in the current EA process for the Navan Landfill.

 

Terms of Reference Content

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference (ToR) Review Process

 

Two weeks prior to submission, WSI submitted a completed Terms of Reference Summary form to allow the Summary to be posted on the MOE website.  WSI also published a notice to inform the public that a ToR has been submitted for the proposed undertaking.  The notice advised the public of where the submission can be reviewed and invited comments to the Minister during the 30-day review period.  WSI completed this notice on 16 June 2006.

 

WSI has noted that it is submitting a focused EA pursuant to subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EAA.   

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Environmental Assessment Phase

 

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

 

Opportunities for Public Input

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Comments on WSI’s Draft ToR

 

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

 

WSI has proposed a “focused” EA with five alternatives.  These options are: do nothing, use the current site as a transfer and processing facility and haul waste elsewhere, construct a thermal destruction facility at the site, establish a new landfill and expand the current landfill.  Of these five alternatives, only expansion of the current landfill has been identified by WSI as the most feasible alternative, given the current legislative and economic climate.  Within the expansion alternative, WSI has proposed five different height and length expansion proposals.

 

The City review has expressed concerns about the scope of the proposal, and the quality of consultation proposed.

 

Staff has included the following comments on the ToR document in Attachment 1, which was submitted to the Province: 

 

·                    WSI has not proposed the establishment of Public Advisory and Technical Advisory Committees; 

 

·                    Consistency as to the wording regarding “increasing site capacity” or “increasing disposal capacity”.  The former implies activities other than waste disposal;

 

·                    More detail is required in Supporting Document No. 1 (Rationale for the Undertaking) that eliminates Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 from further consideration. 

 

·                    WSI has not considered how the public and government review team will address any changes or development of new alternatives within the ToR or Environmental Assessment documents;

 

·                    Copies of the site’s Certificate of Approvals and the compliance status of the Certificate of Approval and other permits should be available for examination; 

 

·                    There is no process to characterize waste streams to the landfill facility.  The ToR should provide a corresponding waste diversion strategy for each waste stream to achieve an overall waste diversion target.

·                    The volumetric expansion of the landfill should be supported by the anticipated residual landfill tonnage and corresponding volume calculation.

 

·                    The discussion of the alternatives to the landfill expansion are provided in a summary fashion which requires a more robust analysis prior to the dismissal of other various options contained in the ToR.

 

·                    The ToR does not provide a daily limit to the waste intake at the facility.  Consequently, there may be transportation/traffic effects that should be evaluated, complete with impact assessment and mitigation considerations.

 

·                    The environmental assessment should consider dust and debris assessment up to 1 km radius from the landfill site.  A 3 km air/odour influence assessment and a mitigation strategy should be developed in the EA arising from odours measured in excess of established threshold limits.

 

·                    Environmental testing limits are not referenced in the ToR to ensure that the current and future environmental baseline measurements are monitored, referenced and measured to appropriate health, environmental and aesthetic criteria.  In addition, the ToR should contain mitigation strategies and public reporting on both the environmental monitoring and mitigation measures that may be applied arising from the monitoring process.

 

·                    A need for explanation as to the varying levels of separation and recovery of recyclable materials from the Industrial Commercial and Industrial (ICI) and Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste streams;

 

·                    Environmental effects of each alternative expansion proposal should be assessed prior to and independent of the development of mitigation measures.  It is premature to assume that any mitigation measures will be required, particularly when WSI has indicated that the EAA application will precede other related applications under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), the Planning Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA);

 

·                    There is no discussion or explanation as to the quantitative methods to be used by WSI to evaluate the five expansion alternatives;

 

·                    There is a lack of commitment to a monitoring strategy and schedule for the EA;

 

·                    There is no explanation as to whether WSI is planning to prepare the ToR and EA documentation in both official languages;

 

·                    There is a lack of existing and threshold measurement criteria to assess odour, air, ground and surface water discharge effects and mitigation requirements; and

 

·                    There is no requirement included to monitor the process and outcomes of any environmental mitigation strategies required from excedences of the threshold levels.

 

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 Step – City of Ottawa

 

Staff has already submitted its comments on behalf of the City to the attention of the MOE and WSI.  Following formal consideration and approval of the attached City’s comments at the 13 September 2006 Council meeting, any changes to the comments will be forwarded to the MOE and WSI for consideration in finalizing the ToR.

 

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

 

Next Steps - WSI

 

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

 

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

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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

 

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Industrial, commercial and institutional waste from both rural and urban areas is accepted at the Navan Landfill.  WSI is contractually committed to reserving 75% of its lifetime capacity to waste generated in Ottawa as per the Settlement Agreement signed in 2001.

 

 

CONSULTATION/PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

 

Utility Services Branch staff consulted internally with the Surface Operations and Health Protection and Promotion Branches to compile its comments.  Contact was made, as well, with South Nation Conservation Authority in regards to their comments on the proposal and any potential impact on the Mer Bleu bog.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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

Attachment 1

 

Staff Comments on the Waste Services (CA) Inc. Environmental Assessment

Terms of Reference (ToR) - 10 July 2006

 

The following document provides the staff comments on Waste Services (CA) Inc. Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference (ToR) submission to the Province of Ontario Ministry of Environment for an expansion to the Navan Landfill Waste Management (WMF) Facility.  Staff have provided the specific comments with respect to the various document references attached herein.  In addition, there are a number of omissions and improvements to the ToR that are recommended by City staff to provide a measure of completeness to the landfill expansion submission, environmental monitoring and control, and background information that will provide an improved ToR submission from the City perspective.

 

General Comments on the ToR:

 

Waste diversion and capacity increase:

 

The ToR should include a waste characterization of the waste streams accepted at the facility.  A corresponding waste diversion strategy is absent in the ToR which would underscore the overall waste diversion plan needed for the facility.  As a consequence of a proactive waste diversion strategy, the residual waste stream should be calculated and form the basis for an increase to the facility capacity.  A process by which the waste characterization, diversion strategies and residual waste stream should be included in the ToR and EA process.

 

Alternatives to landfill: 

 

The ToR submission provides a high level assessment of the alternatives to landfill.  The City recommends a more significant analysis of these alternatives prior to the recommendation of the preferred alternative.  In addition, any future opportunity that may arise from the EA process should be subject to the same rigor in assessment as an alternative to a landfill.

 

Environmental thresholds (limits) are not referenced in the ToR to ensure that the current and future environmental impacts are measured against appropriate limits to ensure operational and environmental performance. 

 

The following section provides specific comments to the ToR document. 

 

Document Reference

Specific Comments

1.  Introduction

·        It is stated in Section 1.1, third paragraph, that the proposed undertaking is an expansion of the approved disposal capacity of the Site.  The fourth paragraph, however, states that the proposal is to increase the approved Site capacity.  Since use of the latter expression implies the capacity of the Site to accommodate activities other than waste disposal, the proper reference should be utilized.

 

 

1.3 Submission Statement

·        WSI has indicated that the proposed undertaking will require approvals under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) as well as the Planning Act.  WSI has also indicated that it will submit an application for Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) approvals prior to seeking other approvals.  The conclusion to be drawn is that an EPA design and operation plan submission will not accompany the EAA submission.  The documents should be included in the EAA submissions.

 

1.4 Flexability of Terms of Reference

·        WSI wants to be able to amend the ToR for what it considers to be minor changes, which could be accommodated within the ToR framework.  However, as per Section 6.9 of the Draft Guide to Preparing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments (December 15, 2000), the EAA does not provide for amendment of the ToR once approved.  WSI should indicate how the public and government review team consultation process will support identification of those changes and how the public and government review team will be able to ratify such minor changes as being exempt from the need to prepare new ToR.  In the absence of this provision, no amendments should be supported outside of the ToR approval process.

 

1.5 Purpose and Organization of these Terms of Reference

 

·        Similar to the initial comment in 1. Introduction, the proposed undertaking should be consistently worded and described throughout the ToR.

 

·        WSI should indicate City of Ottawa approvals, in addition to approvals under the Planning Act, as per the City of Ottawa Official Plan and/or Zoning by-law amendment requirements.

 

·        WSI should include a copy of the original Certificate of Approval, all subsequent amendments and related Certificates of Approval and Permits in the Supporting Documents section.  Also, a description of the Site’s compliance status will respect to all applicable Federal, Provincial, municipal statutes, regulations, guidelines, approvals, by-laws, agreements should be included in the Supporting Documents section.

 

2.1.1 Rationale

·        In the last paragraph, the submission reads “Navan Landfill management is constantly searching for on-site and off-site diversion opportunities to ensure that approved disposal capacity is preserved and used for the disposal of waste with the least commercial value.”  WSI should provide data to support this statement in the Supporting Documents section. 

 

·        A description of WSI’s role (operational plan and diversion objectives) in supporting increased waste reduction and diversion should be included in the ToR Supporting Documents.

 

2.1.3 Consideration of Alternatives

·        It should be noted that other facilities, such as the privately owned Laflèche Landfill in Moose Creek and Mayer Landfill in Hawkesbury also accept Ottawa waste.

 

·        The statement “Continued operation of the Navan Landfill beyond 2011 would also provide continued diversion of and re-use opportunities for wastes and other materials from disposal” is contradictory given that increased diversion should increase current site life.

 

·        With respect to the sentence that reads “Separation and recovery of recyclable materials from the ICI and C&D waste streams is carried out at the site, subject to market conditions”, WSI should explain the market circumstances that render separation and recovery uneconomical and/or impractical.  WSI should explain how such waste is ultimately managed under such circumstances and to what extent landfilling of such waste occurs.

 

2.1.4 Description of the Undertaking

·        WSI has stated that it does not propose to increase the annual waste tonnage beyond that allowed in the current Certificate of Approval.  However, WSI should also state whether it intends to vary its current daily tonnage limit within the Certificate of Approval.

 

·        WSI states that it has indicated to the public that mitigation measures could include discontinuing composting operations at the Site.  It is the City’s opinion that discontinuing composting operations will have no benefit to increasing diversion rates for the City.  Also, odours from leaf and yard compost operations are not additive to landfill odours and therefore discontinuing this operation will likely provide no benefit to the odour threshold. 

The City recommends that this issue be studied carefully by a firm that specializes in odour modeling and control at other landfills.

 

2.2 Identification of Alternative Methods

·        WSI is not specific as to its intent as to whether it will or will not continue its on-site composting activities.

 

·        The alternative of expansion of the current landfill does not include any alternative methods concerning mining or reclamation.  WSI should state the reasons these methods will or will not be included.

 

3.1 Study Area

·        WSI has indicated that it will study a 500 m area.  However, focused EAs traditionally have considered a 1 km study area radius.  The City recommends a 1 km study radius, with air impact assessment with a corresponding 3 km influence study radius.

 

3.2 Environmental Components & Appendix B

 

·        Although WSI has indicated that the EA will address the Natural and Human Environment in Appendix B, there are three primary components – Environmental, Technical and Socio-Economic – along with related subcomponents.  The terminology and intent needs to be clarified by WSI.

 

·        With respect to Appendix B, the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage component is identified under the Environmental Category, but under the Human Environment on page 12.  The correctness of this grouping needs to be clarified by WSI.

 

·        On page 12, Land Use is identified as a subcategory under Human Environment but not identified at all in Appendix B.  If WSI intends on evaluating land use impacts during the EA, it should indicate clearly which are the indicators and data sources that will be used to assess land use impacts.

 

·        Transportation should be identified as a subcomponent of the Human Environment category.

 

·        Data source documents identified in Appendix B, Table B-1 should be available for public and government review team review.

 

3.3 Overview of Existing Environmental Conditions

·        On page 11, WSI identifies the current site boundaries to the west consists of some lands recently rezoned for residential low-density housing.  However, on page 13, these lands are not identified with those lands zoned light commercial, open pasture and wooded area.  WSI must clarify this conflict.

 

4.0 Assessment Methodology

·        The environmental effects of each alternative should be assessed prior to, and independent of, the development of mitigation measures.  Any required mitigation measures may be subject to other approvals, which WSI has indicated it will be sought subsequent to submission of its application for EAA approval.  As such, it is premature to assume that any mitigation measures will be approved.  Figure 8 should also be modified to reflect this position.

 

4.2 Describe the Existing Environment

·         As per Section 6.5 of the Draft Guide to Preparing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments (December 15, 2000), the ToR does not include a listing and brief explanation of the studies, tests, surveys and mapping that will be done to provide a more detailed description of the environment in the EA. 

 

4.5 Elimination or Alteration of Alternatives

·        WSI has indicated that should additional alternatives to the five alternatives identified in the ToR be identified during the EA, these alternatives will be added to the assessment contemplated by the ToR.  This statement assumes that the changes to the ToR are minor.  However, any new alternative(s) does constitute a major change to the ToR which may result in potential environmental effects that are not contemplated by the primary components and subcomponents.  A new alternative may require EA criteria weightings to those listed in Table 1.  The City does not support an automatic inclusion of alternatives in the ToR without amendment of the ToR.

 

4.6 Compare Alternatives

·        WSI should state the quantative methods that it will use to comparatively evaluate the various alternatives.  Likewise, WSI should state how it intends to consult with the public and the government review team to confirm its approach.

 

5.1 Consultation Plan

·        WSI should address the requirement for bilingual document preparation by stating that the ToR and the EA will be completed in both official languages.

 

·        If WSI does not intend to submit any EPA level approval applications for design and operational challenges in conjunction with its EAA approval application, then it should not be necessary to engage local elected officials and City Council on matters relating to “design and operational challenges” during the EA process.

 

·        There is no mention in the Consultation Plan about the establishment or meetings with the Government Review Team.

 

5.3 Consultation on the EA Process

·        The City requests that WSI include a Technical Advisory Committee and a Community Liaison/Communications Committee to be funded by WSI and made part of the EA process. 

General Comments

·        The City requests that an EA Monitoring Strategy be added to the Assessment of the Undertaking.  The EA Monitoring Strategy should include at a minimum, a comprehensive list of monitoring commitments, and a monitoring strategy with contingency plans and schedule.

 

Appendix C Other Approvals

·        It is inaccurate to state that public notices will be required for posting on the Environmental Registry for applications submitted under the Planning Act.

 

·        The statement concerning Planning Act approvals required is too vague given the specificity contained within Ottawa’s Official Plan.

 

Supporting Documentation

·        Tab 1 – WSI should be using actual numbers instead of estimated population numbers for 2003-2005 in Table 2.

 

·        Tab 1, page 4 – WSI states that the Navan Landfill is responsible for an estimated 40 to 50% of the disposal of residual ICI and C&D waste.  However, when calculating the percentage of wastes disposed at the Navan Landfill based on the numbers provide, WSI is receiving 60% and 64% of such wastes in 2005 and 2004 respectively.  These percentages require clarification by WSI.

 

·        Tab 1, page 6 – WSI states that the West Carleton (Carp) Landfill takes about half of the City’s municipal solid waste stream.  This should be corrected to reflect the actual percentage which is 33%.

 

·        Tab 1 – On page 5, it is stated that about 2M tonnes of waste was disposed of in the United States.  However, on page 5, the estimate is 3.6M.  The facts should be consistently presented and interpreted.

 

·        Tab 1, Table 3 – under Alternative 3 – WSI indicates that it is able to provide cost effective service which contradicts their earlier statement that “Thermal destruction plans are very expensive…and likely not economically viable to WSI…”

 

·        Tab 1, Table 3 – Table 3 is entitled Summary of Screening to Identify Reasonable and Practicable Alternatives.  Of the eight assessment factors cited, three are related to economic considerations as opposed to reasonableness or practicality.  If economic considerations are removed as assessment factors, Alternative 4 (Establish a New Landfill) remains as a potential alternative.  With economic considerations factored in, it is not clear from the preceding text in Tab 1 how Alternative 4 can be discounted on the basis of economic viability and acceptable economic risks and benefits and how expansion of the current landfill can.  WSI should
clearly define, in pecuniary terms, what constitutes economic viability and economic risks and benefits and identify the thresholds that inhibit consideration of certain alternatives.

 

Comments from the Public Health Branch

Appropriate buffer zones:

·        The application should state what the extent of the buffer zone is and how the appropriate buffer zones between existing and future development will be determined.

 

Access to site:

·        The submission should outline how the access to the site will be monitored and how will the entrance by non-authorized personnel onto the site be enforced.

 

 

 

Monitoring of wastes:

·        WSI should state what control measures will be in place to ensure that hazardous wastes are not disposed of at the site.

 

Surface water:

·        The submission should state what measures will be put in place to divert surface run-on from the WMF.  The surface run-off location is not referenced or what measures will be put in place to ensure the run-off does not impact surface waters.  The ToR is silent on what contingencies will be in place in case of prolonged heavy rainfall causing flooding conditions.

 

Well-head protection area:

·        Research must be undertaken to demonstrate that the Navan Landfill does not encroach on a ground water well-head protection area.

 

Leachate control:

·        Information must be provided on the type of liner that will be used and the measures that will be in place to monitor the efficiency of the liner and the provisions in case of a liner malfunction.  Investigation must be undertaken to demonstrate that there is no hydraulic connection between the bottom of the liner and the shallow ground water.  Details must be provided as to the final outcome of the leachate (i.e. recycled into landfill, disposal at treatment plant, treatment on-site).

 

Ground water:

·        Details on the measures put in place to ensure that the shallow and deep aquifers are not impacted by the Navan Landfill must be provided, as well as details of the shallow and deep aquifer monitoring program.  Contingencies must be put in place in case of an impact from the Navan Landfill on either or both aquifers.

 

Air quality:

·        Details must be provided regarding the control of landfill gases (explosive and odours).  Details related to the monitoring of landfill gases, both above and below ground surface (i.e. along fissures in rock, utility lines) must be provided.  Contingencies must be in place in case of an accumulation of landfill gases capable of causing an explosion or contributing to odour problems.  Details must be provided as to the control of landfill gases (i.e. passive/active gas collection) as well as their treatment (i.e. combustion/non-combustion, energy recovery) in order to alleviate explosion hazards and odours.  Information should be provided as to the potential impact of the landfill gas treatment method to the outdoor air quality, including potential contributions to green house gases.

 

Vermin and litter control:

·        Details must be provided related to the control of vermin and scavengers, including rodents and birds, as well as to the control of litter on and off-site.

 

Dust and particulate matter control:

·        Details must be provided related to the control of dust and particulate matter on and off-site, and if applicable (i.e. an increase in vehicle traffic associated with the Navan Landfill), along the transportation route.

 

Noise control:

·        Details must be provided related to the control of noise on and off-site, and if applicable (i.e. an increase in vehicle traffic associated with the Navan Landfill), along the transportation route.

 

Transportation:

·        Contingencies must be in place in case of accidental spills or leaks along the transportation route.

 

Final cover and closure:

·        Details must be provided related to the design, construction and maintenance of the final cover.  Contingencies must be in place in case of a malfunction in the final cover.  Details must be provided related to the after-closure care of the landfill, including details on the after-closure monitoring activities; these details must also include how long the after-closure care will be undertaken.