Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1. PUBLIC CONSULTATION - TRAIL ROAD LANDFILL ASSETMANAGEMENT AND LANDFILL OPTIMIZATION STUDY
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
That Council approve:
1. The summary results of the public consultation process for TrailRoad Landfill Optimization be received for information;
2. The concepts outlined in the Trail Road Landfill AssetManagement and Landfill Optimization Study be accepted;
3. Staff be directed to pursue the options outlined in the Trail Road LandfillAsset Management and Landfill Optimization Study.
4. Staff be directed to include the proposals from the Citizen ReviewCommittee (anaerobic digester and poplar forest capping) in theirconsideration of options for optimizing the Trail Road site.
DOCUMENTATION:
1. Director, Solid Waste Division, Environment and Transportation Departmentreport dated 07 May 1999 is immediately attached.
2. Correspondence dated 25 May 1999, from Richard and Roseanne Hill;submission from Werner Daeschel dated 25 May 99; and, copy of slides used instaff presentation immediately follows the report.
3. Extract of Draft Minute, 25 May 99, follows and includes a record of the vote.
1
REGION OF OTTAWA CARLETON REPORTRÉGION D’OTTAWA CARLETON RAPPORT
Our File/N/Réf. 50 17-1999-0001-HYour File/V/Réf.
DATE 07 May 1999
TO/DEST. Co-ordinatorPlanning and Environment Committee
FROM/EXP. Director, Solid Waste DivisionEnvironment and Transportation Department
SUBJECT/OBJET PUBLIC CONSULTATION - TRAIL ROAD LANDFILL ASSETMANAGEMENT AND LANDFILL OPTIMIZATION STUDY
DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:
1. The summary results of the public consultation process for Trail Road LandfillOptimization be received for information;
2. The concepts outlined in the Trail Road Landfill Asset Management and Landfill
Optimization Study be accepted; 3. Staff be directed to pursue the options outlined in the Trail Road Landfill Asset
Management and Landfill Optimization Study.
BACKGROUND
The Planning and Environment Committee, at its meeting of 27 October 1998, received a reportentitled, “Final Draft - Trail Road Landfill Asset Management and Landfill Optimization Study”(Landfill Optimization Report). This preliminary technical feasibility study identifies a number ofoptions to extend the life of the landfill. The report concluded that the Trail Road Landfill couldcontinue to be operated for many years by adopting any or all of these design options, and thepreliminary analysis suggested that optimization is cost effective compared to the Greenfield sitealternative. The staff report gave a brief overview of the technical report and indicated that the
2
Department would implement a preliminary public consultation process and report back to theCommittee on the results of the consultation. This report outlines the results of the consultationprocess.
DISCUSSION
1. Landfill Optimization Report Summary
The Landfill Optimization Report represents a summary of a number of technicalinvestigations that have been undertaken for the Trail Road Landfill. First, the reportdetermined the current life expectancy of the landfill by analyzing the site dynamics (geometry,compression, biodegradation) and different disposal scenarios (diversion rate, impact of otherlandfills in Ottawa-Carleton). With the current site life expectancy established, the estimatedtime requirements for events such as approvals and construction were determined.
Three basic options to extend the life of the landfill where identified: i) increase the height ofthe landfill, ii) increase the size (footprint) of the landfill, and iii) landfill reclamation (mining).Cost information was added by determining the cost of the optimization options andcomparing it against the cost of landfill replacement. The report presents different optionsand combinations of options with estimated costs and site life extensions. Again, as notedabove, the report concludes that there are feasible and cost effective options available toextend the life of the Trail Road Landfill Site.
The Optimization Report has estimated the remaining life of the Trail Road Landfill to be 10years, given current disposal rates. Should regulatory approval or unforeseen technicalproblems halt the optimization process, the Region of Ottawa-Carleton would be required tocommence a more involved process to secure new disposal capacity in advance of theestimated closure of the Trail Road Landfill Site. Pursuing the option of optimizing the TrailRoad Landfill Site at this time, therefore, is both necessary and timely.
2. Public Consultation
The preliminary public consultation focused on a fairly general question and that is whetherthe current landfill resource should be optimized (as long as it makes economic, environmentaland operational sense) or should the Region start looking at other options for its future wastedisposal needs. The components of the consultation were:
• News Release (15 April 1999)• Window On Your Region advertisement (22 March to 16 April 1999)• Question and Answer brochure (mailed out)• Region’s Web Page• Presentation to Nepean Public Works Committee (12 April 1999)
3
• Mailouts to Community, Business and Environmental Stakeholders Groups• Open Houses• A Telephone Survey (400 households)• Consultation Packages to neighbours surrounding the landfill
The overall conclusion of the consultation process is that there is broad public support foroptimizing the Trail Road Landfill. Details of the consultation are included in Annex A. Briefhighlights of the consultation are as follows:
a) Individuals
Comments from members of the public were received either by electronic mail, commentforms from the open houses or mail. Almost all comments received are in favour ofoptimizing the landfill. Some residents specifically supported the Region’s diversionprograms and a few supported incineration as a method of disposal. Local land ownersalso expressed property value concerns.
b) Stakeholder Groups
The Gloucester Environmental Advisory Committee submitted a communicationsupporting optimization. The Barrhaven Sewer Action Committee, while makingdeputation at the Nepean Public Works Committee, advised the Committee that itsupports the principle of the Optimization Study in that it forms a solid basis for the long-term management of the landfill site.
c) Nepean Public Works
Staff presented the Optimization Report to the Nepean Public Works Committee as acourtesy, in light of Nepean’s role as “host municipality”. The report was received by theCommittee and minutes of the meeting are included in Annex B.
d) Open Houses
Two open houses were held and approximately 50 people attended. In general, there wassupport for the optimization program from the residents who attended. Understandably,many of the close neighbours of the landfill expressed their concern about optimization.
4
e) Telephone Survey
The telephone survey found that a large percentage of the public is aware of the potentialproblem of running out of disposal capacity (86%). The majority of those surveyedindicated an equal support for extending the life of the landfill and for incineration as asolution (40%). Other options, such as finding a new landfill site in the Region andexporting waste (9%), received little public support.
Sound environmental practice is the most important factor for the public. Ninety-seven(97%) believe that minimizing the environmental impacts on soil, water and air quality isimportant. Minimizing these environmental impacts is not important to only 2% of thepublic. There was also strong support for increased diversion programs. Keeping costs aslow as possible is important to 64% of respondents, whereas only 12% of respondentsbelieve keeping costs low was not important. A summary of the findings of the telephonesurvey is included as Annex C.
4. Related Issues
As Committee and Council are aware, the Region is currently working towards a leachatetreatment and disposal solution for the Trail Road Landfill. Leachate handling is one of manyoperational issues that must be addressed during the ongoing operation and subsequentclosure and perpetual care stages of running a landfill. Although some of the options relatedto landfill mining have potential to further enhance the environmental protection of thegroundwater, the operating obligations with respect to groundwater impacts must be metregardless. Therefore, decisions required with respect to optimization can proceedindependently of the leachate issue.
5. Next Steps
Committee and Council are not being asked at this time to select which option(s) they prefer.It is anticipated that should this process proceed through the appropriate approval phases, theresults of subsequent studies will determine which option(s) is the most feasible. ShouldCommittee and Council, after consideration of the technical report and the results of thepublic consultation, choose to proceed with optimization at Trail Road, the Department willenter into preliminary discussion with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to determinehow to proceed with optimization under the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. It isimportant to note that should the Region pursue optimization under the EA process, furtherconsultation will be required.
A significant feature of Ontario's EA approvals process, as a result of changes inJanuary 1997, is that proponents are required to prepare a Terms of Reference (T of R) forundertakings that are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). In the past, the
5
formal EA approval process began with the submission of an EA to the MOE. Now the EAprocess begins with the submission to the Ministry of a proposed T of R for the preparation ofan EA. Once approved by the Minister, the T of R provides a framework for preparing theEA, and also serves as a benchmark for reviewing the EA. Following the Minister's approvalof the T of R, the proponent (the Region) in preparing its EA will only be required to dealwith matters falling within the provisions of the approved T of R.
Subject to Council direction, staff will pursue the T of R process for optimization, which willbe a key component of the discussions with the Ministry.
EXPENDITURE JUSTIFICATION
The Region has a long-term responsibility for the disposal of residential solid waste. Theoptimization study outlines, on a preliminary basis, a number of options that appear to betechnically feasible and economically advantageous to the residents of Ottawa-Carleton. Thestudy offers a preliminary estimate of savings related to the various optimization options whencompared to the alternative of securing new disposal capacity. Funds are available for furtherwork on this project under Capital Budget Project Number 900347.
CONCLUSION
The consultation process has concluded that there is broad public support for optimizing the TrailRoad Landfill. The public has a high level of understanding regarding waste disposal and thechallenges that diminishing capacity potentially presents to the community. The importance ofsound environmental practice, including increased diversion efforts, was a common themethroughout the consultation. Residents whose properties surround the landfill have expressedsome concerns, and the Region should continue to work in a fair and equitable manner to addressthese concerns.
The Department recommends that the “Trail Road Landfill Asset Management and LandfillOptimization Study” be accepted by Council as a technical feasibility report that outlines a numberof design options to extend the operational life of the Trail Road Landfill for many years. Staffshould then proceed to investigate both the various detailed design options and the approvalsrequired to carry out these options.
Approved byP. McNally, P.Eng.
KHW/mm
Attach. (3)
ANNEX A
TRAIL ROAD LANDFILL OPTIMIZATIONSUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
1. Individual Comments
Date Summary Form of Contact
03/25/99 Supports optimization - "elsewhere" is someone's backyard, increase waste diversion,reduce packaging at the source.
03/29/99
03/27/99
Supports optimization and new site. Create a feasible alternative plan now.
Fully supports optimization - not using a resource to its fullest is simply compoundingthe problem of waste.
03/30/99 Supports optimization - by delaying requirement for a new disposal system emergingtechnologies may develop which we will be able to implement.
03/30/99 Supports optimization - make Trail the only landfill to force conservation, put in wastelimits, encourage bulk sales to avoid packaging, ban plastic bags, increase diversioneducation.
03/31/99 Supports optimization - support for incineration, description of a complete ecologicalsystem which makes use of energy from incineration, efficient vehicles, composting etc.
04/03/99 Believes that the current landfill site should be optimized as much as feasible, taking intoaccount economic, environmental and operational factors.
04/04/99 Supports optimization, use bar codes to automate sorting of recycling, use tax incentivesto discourage use of materials not recyclable.
04/07/99 Supports optimization, specifically landfill mining. e-mail
04/06/99
04/06/99
04/08/99
04/08/99
04/14/99
04/14/99
04/14/99
04/14/99
04/14/99
The money you spend on more land can be put into buying an incinerator now and ashescan be put in the existing remaining landfill.Definitely use existing site for as long as possible. Educate/encourage public to compost,recycle as much possible. Research alternative strategies.Full agreement with optimization.
Yes optimization within enviro, operation, economic guidelines. Must now look at futurewaste disposal needs.Why not have tags for garbage? Where this is implemented, citizens pay more attentionto recycling and buy with less packaging.It should be optimized but we should also have another landfill closer to east end of thecity.We should work toward 100% recycling and elimination of the need for landfill.Technology is possible so why don’t we do it?We should optimize and look in case first option does not work. We should pay forgarbage by bag and consider privatizing collection.Believe that we can use the current landfill resources for the present time, but should lookfor future site.
2
Date Summary Form of Contact
04/26/99 Region should support optimizing current landfill as long as it makes sense..
04/17/99 Supports optimization. Trail Road is a holding area and new technologies may helprestore it to natural use, moving to a new location only makes it worse.
open house
04/17/99 Supports optimization as long as it is not cost prohibitive, identifying a good alternativesite makes sense too.
Open house
04/20/99 Feasibility of incinerator, should ban the use of plastic bags mail
04/22/99 Supports optimization, reduce and divert as much as possible and incinerate whatever isleft.
open house
04/26/99 Prefer new site, concerned about property values mail
05/14/99 Supports optimization, will allow time to explore and assess other possible sites. Shouldconsider environmental implications and mitigate the impact on the surroundingcommunity.
Fax
05/14/99 Optimization should start right away, not in favour of exporting waste, investigate latestincineration methods and other technologies.
Fax
2. Stakeholder Groups
Gloucester Environmental Advisory Committee
This Committee wishing to convey their support of the optimization of the existing TrailRoad Landfill Site.
Barrhaven Sewer Action Committee
Minutes of the 12 April 1999 meeting of the Nepean Public Works Committee
Mr. Joe King, representative of the Barrhaven Sewer Action Committee, advised that theAction Committee supports the principle of this study.
In a response to a question from Councillor Harder, Mr. King qualified his statement byindicating that the Barrhaven Sewer Action Committee supports this Study because itsgeneral principle looks at the long term management of the landfill site. He added theStudy forms a solid basis and congratulated the Region on its report.
South Keys / Greenboro Community Association
The South Keys / Greenboro Community Association recommends optimization of thecurrent landfill. It makes more sense to increase the size of the landfill, to increase itsheight and/or to mine the already filled areas than it does to look elsewhere for futurewaste disposal needs at this time. When optimization at the Trail Road Landfill is no
longer feasible, another type of waste disposal technology, such as a very efficientincinerator or similar high-end technology disposal device should be explored. A type ofincinerator in which the by-product could be recycled is worth exploring.
ANNEX B
The following is an excerpt from the Minutes of the City of Nepean’s Public WorksCommittee meeting held on 12 April 1999:
The following report was submitted by Mr. A.C. Bellinger, Commissioner of Public Works, forCommittee’s consideration:
03 Report No. 035-99 - Trail Road Landfill Optimization Study - Presentation byRegion of Ottawa-Carleton cont’d:
SUBJECT:Trail Road Landfill Asset Management/Landfill Optimization Study.File No. T09-99-TRA
LOCATION:Trail Road, South Nepean.
RECOMMENDATION:That Committee receive the presentation by Regional Staff as information.
REPORT:Staff of the Region’s Environment and Transportation Department have requested an opportunityto make a 10 minute presentation to Committee on the Asset Management/Landfill OptimizationStudy for the Trail Road Landfill. Prior to presenting the results of this report to RegionalCouncil a preliminary public consultation program is being initiated. As the host municipality forthe landfill, a presentation to Committee was considered an important part of this consultation.
Attached for Committee’s information, are the Executive Summary from the report, a copy of theadvertisement advising of the preliminary public consultation program, and Questions andAnswers about the Landfill Optimization Program. Public comments will be received up untilMay 14, 1999, and a report incorporating the public input is tentatively scheduled to be presentedto the Region’s Planning & Environment Committee on May 25, 1999.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:N/A
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/CONSULTATION:Regular notification process: Nepean Clarion, all Community Associations, Access Nepeansection of the public libraries, City voice mail boxes, City of Nepean website(www.city.nepean.on.ca) and news media.
ATTACHMENTS included in the Agenda with Report No. 035-99:1. Executive Summary - Trail Road Landfill Asset Management / Landfill Optimization
Study.2. Public Consultation advertisements.3. Questions and Answers - Landfill Optimization Program.
2
DISCUSSION:Mr. Pat McNally, Director, Solid Waste Division, Region of Ottawa-Carleton, presented thereport, noting that this Optimization Study is a result of three other studies that have beenconducted since 1990. He advised that the last study conducted looked at reviewing possibleoptions available to increase the usage of the landfill site, and that the Optimization Studyincluded in this report is a direct lead-off from this third study.
Mr. McNally advised that this Optimization Study is only a technical feasibility study that lookedat waste management, and which allowed the Region an opportunity to review when the currentLandfill site would be filled to capacity.
Mr. McNally advised that based on space calculations, the Trail Road Landfill could potentiallyremain in operation until 2008/2009, and he reviewed the options considered as indicated inAttachment No.1 to Public Works Report No. 035-99.
Mr. McNally advised that if the Region chooses to do nothing, it will be necessary to commencethe process for securing new disposal facilities or technologies within the next two years. Headded that theoretically it would cost approximately $100,000,000 to develop a new landfill sitewith a twenty to twenty-five year life span.
Mr. McNally advised that this report was scheduled to be presented to the Region’s Planning andEnvironmental Committee on May 14th, and then to Regional Council on June 15, 1999, and ifsupport is received from Council to research the options further, they would enter into furtherdiscussions with the public.
In response to a question from Councillor Sullivan, Mr. McNally advised that staff has consideredthe possibility that waste may increase if some residents choose not to participate in the expandedrecycling program recently undertaken by the Region, (i.e. black boxes). He added that in fact,since introducing recycling, and public participation promotions, the amount of material beingrecycled has increased from 30,000 to 50,000 tonnes per year. However, he noted there may beissues related to the expanded recycling program that will have to monitored and addressed at alater date.
In response to a question from Councillor Farnworth, Mr. McNally advised that the $40,000,000.referenced in the report would cover the costs of initiating a new landfill site that would only havea five year capacity, whereas the $100,000,000 he referred to in his oral presentation would coverthe costs of initiating a new landfill site with a lifetime capacity of twenty to twenty-five years.
In response to a question from Councillor Farnworth, Mr. McNally indicated that the Region didnot have a reserve fund large enough to cover the $40,000,000 expenditure. He added however,that he did not have any solid financial details at this time.
3
In response to a question from Councillor Harder, Mr. McNally advised that based on the figuresfrom this preliminary Optimization Study, the landfill site could be built up another 11 metres.
In response to a question from Councillor Harder, Mr. McNally advised that all four stages, eventhe two already capped (Stages 1 and 2), would be included in the application of any optionschosen.
In response to a question from Councillor Harder, Mr. McNally advised that with regard toStages 1 and 2, they would only remove a portion of the cap at a time, mine the landfill, and takeadvantage of the opportunity to install a liner. He added that by re-opening these two closed offsites, it provided an opportunity to go back and enhance the existing storage applications used.
In response to questions from Councillor Harder, Mr. McNally advised that in essence thisOptimization Study could also be considered as part of the beginning of a search for a new landfillsite. He noted that any options applied to treating the current leachate will be driven by anEnvironmental Assessment, and that optimizing this site is not related to this issue.
Mr. Joe King, representative of the Barrhaven Sewer Action Committee, advised the ActionCommittee supports the principle of this study.
In response to a question from Councillor Harder, Mr. King qualified his statement by indicatingthat the Barrhaven Sewer Action Committee supports this Study because its general principlelooks at the long term management of the landfill site. He added the Study forms a solid basis,and congratulated the Region on their report.
Councillor Rywak, Chair, moved a motion to not support any proposed extensions of the use ofthis site.
Chair Rywak advised that the current method of burying garbage is outdated, and that newemerging technologies are available which provide better solutions. She indicated that the currentproblems with leachate also have to be considered. For these, and other related reasons, sheasked that the Public Works Committee support her motion.
Councillor Chiarelli indicated that he was not comfortable supporting this motion withoutspeaking to the Nepean Environmental Committee as it should be given an opportunity to reviewthis Study and provide an opinion. He added that he would like to see this matter referred tothem, and moved a motion to defer consideration of Councillor Rywak’s motion in order to affordthe Environmental Committee this opportunity.
Chair Rywak advised that if this matter is deferred until the Environmental Committee has had achance to review the Study, she would like an opportunity to speak before them to relay herconcerns.
Councillor Harder advised she would not support a referral of this matter to the NepeanEnvironmental Committee, noting that this is a Public Works Committee issue. She added that
the Environmental Committee has their own workplan to contend with, and noted that staff isonly asking this Committee to receive the Region’s presentation as information.
4
Councillor Farnworth noted that although she was in support of having the EnvironmentalCommittee review this study, she was concerned with the tight time-line, as the deadline forpublic consultation is May 14, and added the Environmental Committee has their own time-lines, and workload commitments.
Moved by Councillor Chiarelli
BE IT RESOLVED THAT consideration by the Public Works Committee to support thepermanent closure of the landfill site be deferred until such time as the Nepean EnvironmentalCommittee has had an opportunity to review and provide their expert opinion on theOptimization Study included in Public Works Report No. 035-99.
- Motion Lost -Mayor Pitt, Councillors Phillips, Farnworth and Harder dissented
Moved by Councillor Rywak
WHEREAS the Trail Road Landfill site is owned and operated by the RegionalMunicipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and is situated in the City of Nepean;
AND WHEREAS the site, which has been operating for approximately 20 years, will befull in 2005;
AND WHEREAS, through various design changes and the optimization of operationalpractices, including extending the site’s footprint and a program to reclaim landfill (mining oldsite), the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton proposes to extend the life of the site to2009;
AND WHEREAS this site is situated on sand with numerous recharge areas in theunderlying aquifer, that flows toward the Jock River;
AND WHEREAS this site is experiencing substantial leaching, which now requires amethod, or methods, of disposal;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Nepean City Council inform the Regional Municipality ofOttawa-Carleton that it strongly denounces any proposal to extend the use of the site to 2009,and strongly supports permanent closure of the site in 2005 to eliminate greater increase in theamount of leachate which will be produced in the future;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be sent to theMinister for the Environment for the Province of Ontario.
- Motion Lost -Mayor Pitt, Councillors Phillips, Farnworth, Chiarelli, Sullivan and Harder dissented
Moved by Councillor Harder
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Public Works Committee receive the presentation byRegional staff as information.
- Carried -
ANNEX C
David Redmond and Associates
TRLS Optimisation Telephone Survey Executive Summary
Survey methodology
The findings presented in this summary are based on a telephone survey of a representative sampleof 392 households in the Region. The survey was conducted from April 16 - 26.
The public supports optimisation of TRLS and incineration
Public awareness and concern about this waste management problem is high. Only 4% ofrespondents did not voice an opinion on a possible solution to the limited life of the TRLS.
The public supports optimisation and incineration as the two best ways to deal with the problemof the limited life of the Trail Road Landfill Site. Top of mind, 45% of respondents preferredincineration and 37% preferred extending the life of the Trail Road Landfill Site as the best way todeal with solid waste when the current site is full in eight to 10 years. After being given someadditional information, opinion shifted slightly so that support was equal for incineration (41%)and extending the life of the Trail Road Landfill Site (40%). There are some differences amongdemographic groups in the levels of support for these two solutions but none are very large.
There is little public support for other solutions
Other solutions to the solid waste problem received little public support. Finding a site andbuilding a new landfill site in the Region was preferred by only 9% of residents. Similarly, findinga site outside the Region and transporting waste to the site was the preferred solution of just 9%of residents.
Excavation and increasing the land area are supported to optimise the TRLS
Respondents were asked about three possible options for optimising the Trail Road site.Increasing the land area covered by the site by 20% to extend its life by seven years received thesupport of 58% of respondents; just 16% disagreed with this option (the rest were neutral).Support for increasing the height of the landfill by 10 metres to extend its life by eight yearsreceived less support: 42% agreed with this option while 32% disagreed.
A majority of the public (61%) supports excavating the Trail Road site to reclaim space and torecycle some of the materials. Disagreement with excavating the site is quite low at 17%.
2
Environmental factors lead public opinion about solid waste disposal
Sound environmental practices are the most important factors to the public: 97% said thatminimising the environmental impacts on soil, water and air quality is important, including 85%who rated this as very important. Minimising these environmental impacts is unimportant to only2% of the public.
Minimising the physical impacts of the landfill such as sight and smell is important to 83% ofrespondents (and very important to 54%). The rated importance of minimising the impacts onlocal residents (82%) is very similar.
Keeping costs as low as possible is important to 64% of respondents (and very important to43%). However, costs are not important to only 12% of respondents. Like public opinion aboutthe leachate issue, costs become important once the more important environmental issues havebeen taken care of. The public will trade off costs for high environmental standards.
Recycling programs are strongly supported to reduce the demand for landfill
A very large segment of the public supports recycling programs as part of the solution to thelandfill problem. Respondents made many comments during the survey in addition to thequantitative data captured by the questionnaire. Almost all of these dealt with recycling. Therewere two main themes in these comments. First, many people believe that more education on thebenefits of recycling and on how to recycle will contribute to the solution. Secondly, many peoplethink that manufacturers should take more responsibility to reduce packaging so that there wouldbe less waste to recycle. Some respondents said that they are starting to reach the limit of theirability to recycle. These respondents said they would still do more if they could but believe thatpackaging creates problems that they do not have the ability to solve.
More specifically, there is strong public support for enhanced recycling initiatives. Overall, 95%of respondents agreed that the Region should expand recycling programs to keep as much wasteas possible out of landfill. Similarly, 95% of the public said they are willing to do more to prepareand sort garbage and recyclables to keep waste out of landfill. Support drops slightly to 87%among people aged 60 and over. Support for the recycling of organics is also high. Overall, 86%of respondents said they would be willing to sort and recycle organics such as kitchen and foodwaste to keep waste out of landfill. Support for recycling organics ranges from a low of 79% inthe 60 plus age category to a high of 91% in the 40 to 49 age category.
Extract of Draft MinutePlanning and Environment Committe25 May 1999
PUBLIC CONSULTATION - TRAIL ROAD LANDFILL ASSETMANAGEMENT AND LANDFILL OPTIMIZATION STUDY -Director, Solid Waste Division Environment and TransportationDepartment report dated 07 May 1999
Pat McNally, Director, Waste Management Division and Kevin Wylie, Coordinator,Waste Diversion Branch, made a brief presentation to the Committee, providing anoverview of the optimization study, the public consultation and the next steps to be takenif optimization is the option approved by Committee and Council. Copies of the slidesused in the presentation are held on file with the Regional Clerk.
Committee Chair Hunter noted Mr. McNally had stated in his presentation, that theMinistry of the Environment (MOE) could reject the optimization option. He asked staffto elaborate on this. Mr. McNally indicated if the Region chooses to proceed andoptimize the site, it will need a number of different approvals along the way. One of thoseapprovals is the MOE’s. At this point, a technical feasibility study has been completed,which indicates that optimization appears to be feasible based on the extent that it hasbeen looked at it to date. Staff feel if the recommendations presented in the staff reportare adopted by Committee and Council, it enhances the Region’s position in goingforward but advised there is no guarantee that the Ministry will approve optimization.
Chair Hunter then asked if the technologies suggested for optimization of the landfill hadbeen approved elsewhere in Ontario. Mr. McNally advised over the last few years theMOE has become more receptive to some of the technologies put forward. He saidcertain of the solutions suggested (e.g. going higher, mining landfills) are currently beingdone in various parts of Ontario, each subject to MOE approval.
Councillor van den Ham stated he would have thought the MOE would be in support, inprinciple, of optimization of a landfill. Mr. McNally indicated it would be difficult tospeak for the MOE, however, he felt it safe to say the MOE would be in support of soundwaste management practices and he noted the Region has been fairly aggressive withrespect to its waste management programs (e.g. waste diversion). He offered the Regionhas taken as many of the right steps as it can, but at this point, the question must be put tothe MOE.
Responding to further questions from Councillor van den Ham concerning the option ofincineration, Mr. McNally advised this study looked specifically at optimizing the landfilland he said staff will ask the MOE to scope the environmental assessment down tooptimizing the landfill. He went on to say five years ago, looking for a waste disposalsolution, would have involved looking at a wide spectrum of options (e.g. landfill,
Extract of Draft MinutePlanning and Environment Committee25 May 1999
incineration, export, etc.) and the process dictated what was acceptable under theEnvironmental Assessment Act.
Councillor Legendre had questions concerning the length of time it would take to find anew site, should optimization not be accepted by the MOE. Mr. McNally advised, in theearly 1990’s the site selection process took between six to ten years, with no guaranteethat a site would be found at the end of the process. In 1997, the MOE introduced somechanges to the Environmental Assessment Act, including the scoping option, in an effortto shorten the time lines and bring more certainty to the process. He noted Trail Roadlandfill is projected to last until 2008-2009; if optimization is rejected as an option, it isessential that the Region start looking for a new site immediately.
Councillor Legendre then referred to the consultant’s summary at page 13 of Agenda andnoted he was intrigued by the support for incineration. He inquired if the survey qualifiedincineration as high temperature incineration. Mr. McNally advised the phone survey didnot go into a great deal of detail.
Councillor Munter asked if the question put to those surveyed was “Are you in favour ofincineration?” or “Are you willing to live within five kilometres of an incinerator?”. Mr.McNally advised he believed it was just a general question with respect to different typesof waste disposal options.
Responding to concerns expressed by Councillor van den Ham Mr. McNally advisedStage 3 is very close to being full and that is why it is important for Committee andCouncil to proceed so that if the Region does eventually optimize, money is not invested(i.e. in capping Stage 3) that could be saved.
At this juncture, Committee Chair Hunter temporarily left the chair and Vice-ChairStewart took over. The Committee then heard from the following speakers.
Mrs. Sinha made a presentation to Committee, using a map of the area of Trail RoadLandfill site. She asked if the Committee was aware that when a landfill site reaches itspotential, it is leveled, landscaped and returned to its own municipality (i.e. Nepean in thisinstance) for the nominal sum of $1.00. Mrs. Sinha then gave a brief history of the site,noting Nepean Township originally started with 72 acres in 1962 which was taken over bythe Region after it was created in 1968. She pointed out millions of dollars have beenspent over the years on consultants, engineering reports, public participation, etc.reviewing the life of the landfill site. Since the landfill site began, the 72 acres hasincreased to 906.91 acres.
Extract of Draft MinutePlanning and Environment Committee25 May 1999
Mrs. Sinha went on to say that despite objections from people such as herself, there hasnever been an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing on the landfill site. She suggestedthat independent engineers be hired to assess the life of the landfill and she opined theywould agree that the average life of a landfill is only ten years. Mrs. Sinha offered TrailRoad was the wrong place for a landfill as it is on sand and gravel and less than a quarterof a mile from the Jock River.
In closing Mrs. Sinha stated the use of Trail Road Landfill site should be stopped and forthe sake of the “children of tomorrow”, the sooner an alternative is found the better.
Responding to questions from Councillor van den Ham, Mrs. Sinha confirmed she isagainst optimization.
Werner Daechsel Vice-president Outreach appeared before Committee and providedcopies of his presentation (held on file with the Regional Clerk).
Mr. Daechsel began by congratulating the consultants on their very “open” report. Hethen went on to suggest another recommendation be added to the report that an anaerobicdigestor be added to the leachate circulation line (Cell 3). He said this process wouldspeed up the degradation of Cell 3 and would also provide additional methane which canbe used. Mr. Daechsel expressed agreement with the notion of capping Cell 3 andsuggested the preferable option would be a poplar forest instead of a plastic cap. He thenexpressed the hope Committee would meet the challenge put forward by Mr. Martin (theFederal Finance Minister) with respect to environmental proposals. Mr. Daechsel referredCommittee to the proposals contained in his submission.
Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen asked Mr. McNally if staff had considered the optionspresented by Mr. Daechsel. Mr. McNally indicated although he had not had anopportunity to review Mr. Daechsel’s submission, he would do so. He sought clarificationfrom Mr. Daechsel on the recirculation of leachate in Stage 3, to which Mr. Daechselstated he was proposing the leachate be ran through the anaerobic digestor (as opposed tocirculation in its raw form, as is done currently) and then recirculated.
In response to comments from Chair Hunter, Mr. Daechsel stated he felt comfortable hisproposals would be looked at and he stated his group would be happy to work with staffto evaluate which type of anaerobic digestor would be best suited to this site.
Councillor Munter indicated he would be putting forward a motion directing staff toexamine the alternatives proposed by Mr. Daechsel.
Extract of Draft MinutePlanning and Environment Committee25 May 1999
Responding to questions posed by Councillor Munter, Mr. McNally indicated staff wouldlike go forward with the concept of optimization to the Ministry of Environment (MOE).Then, if the decision is to optimize, the operational details may be looked at within thescope of optimizing the site. He stressed, at the moment, staff was looking forendorsement on the optimization question to enable them to go forward to the MOE.
Councillor Munter had further questions concerning potential federal funding and thepossibility of pilot projects for the alternatives proposed. Nancy Schepers, A/DeputyCommissioner, Environment and Transportation Department noted staff are continuallylooking for funding opportunities and opportunities to enhance the daily operations, whichcould include taking advantage of things such as those suggested, as the optimizationstudy goes forward.
Joseph King, Barrhaven Sewer Action Committee stated this is a technical feasibilityreport and is not cast in stone. He said the group he represents supports the principlesinherent to this report primarily because part of the optimization study does result in theimprovement of the current site and improvement of the technology being used on site.The Barrhaven Sewer Action Committee believes optimization needs to be looked at in anholistic way. In their opinion, optimization of the site includes such things as thecomposting programs and recycling (including the recycling of the landfill). As well,leachate management, capping, groundwater management, research options, land use andownership, partnerships (including the federal government, the MOE and private sectorinvestors) should all come into play in the optimization.
Mr. King indicated each person in Region has a role and interest in the long termmanagement of this asset (Trail Road Landfill). He expressed the hope the EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) will identify a number of options, although he had the impression theintent was to return only one option. Mr. King then congratulated staff on the report,noting it creates a good focal point for the Region to manage this asset.
Charlotte Greer, Gloucester South Community Association, stated she was very pleasedwith the report. However, she did express concern with one part of the report having todo with incineration. Ms. Greer noted this was addressed in 1984-85, and she asked if thisoption would be considered within the context of optimization. Mr. McNally clarified thequestion of incineration was only introduced as part of the public consultation in the phonesurvey; it was not considered at all in the optimization study.
Ms. Greer then went on to speak about older landfill sites in and around the area andasked if any thought had been given to re-mining those sites as part of the optimization.Mr. McNally pointed out the sites referred to were privately owned landfill sites; with
Extract of Draft MinutePlanning and Environment Committee25 May 1999
respect to one site in particular (the Range Road site), Mr. McNally indicated theDepartment had not looked at it.
Councillor Legendre noted Ms. Greer’s concern with incineration and opined the currenttechnology of very high temperature incineration, is far from what may have been exploredin the mid-eighty’s. He advised high temperature incineration produces an end productthat looks like glass, is inert in every aspect and would not harm the environment.
Responding to questions posed by Councillor Legendre, Mr. McNally confirmedincineration is now legal in Ontario.
In concluding her comments, Ms. Greer indicated her main concern was ensuring thatincineration was not being including in the optimization option, noting one of the mainproblems in 1984-85 was the lack of public consultation.
There being no further speakers, the Committee considered the motion put forward byCouncillor Munter.
Moved by A. Munter
That Staff be directed to include the proposals from the Citizen Review Committee(anaerobic digester and poplar forest capping) in their consideration of options foroptimizing the Trail Road site.
CARRIED
Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen expressed her concurrence with the optimization of thelandfill site from an economic and environmental perspective and indicated she wouldsupport it when it comes to Council. She acknowledged the Barrhaven Sewer ActionCommittee and the Citizens’ Review Committee for Waste Management of OttawaCarleton for their continued interest and support.
Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen then referred to a letter distributed to Committee fromRichard and Roseanne Hill, dated 25 May 1999 and asked that it be attached to the reportto Council. She noted they are the closest residents to the landfill site and they haveconcerns about optimization. At the time Mr. and Mrs. Hill built their home, it was theRegion’s view the landfill site had a life expectancy and therefore they would not be livingforever beside the landfill site (as a functioning landfill site). They understandably havesome concerns about the long-term effects to their property.
Extract of Draft MinutePlanning and Environment Committee25 May 1999
The Councillor went on to speak about the effects on rural land owners in the vicinity ofthe landfill, pointing out in spite of improvements to technology and the management ofthe landfill site, there are still odours, garbage truck traffic, concerns about leachate andgroundwater contamination. Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen also relayed compliments shehad received from neighbours to the landfill site, about Mr. Watson and Mr. McNally’sefforts to keep them informed of the situation.
Committee Chair Hunter stated he was familiar with the Hill house and noted it was atleast a kilometre west of Trail Road Landfill site and he surmised only one truck per weekwould likely go by their house. Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen pointed out the Regionbought the land directly across from the Hill property, to use as buffer lands.
The Committee then considered the staff recommendations as amended.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Councilapprove:
1. The summary results of the public consultation process forTrail Road Landfill Optimization be received for information;
2. The concepts outlined in the Trail Road Landfill AssetManagement and Landfill Optimization Study be accepted;
3. Staff be directed to pursue the options outlined in the TrailRoad Landfill Asset Management and Landfill OptimizationStudy.
4. Staff be directed to include the proposals from the CitizenReview Committee (anaerobic digester and poplar forestcapping) in their consideration of options for optimizing theTrail Road site.
CARRIED as amended
