Trash Talk!

I attended the special meeting conducted on July 13 about the Carp Landfill Terms of Reference for ICI waste.  I suspect that most of you were made aware of the meeting through the City of Ottawa advertisements which specifically advised visiting the city funded websites of Councillors Qadri, E.-Chantiry, Feltmate, Wilkinson and Brooks.  First, this implies that the ICI issue relates only to the western part on the city which it does not and second, gave very little time for interested parties to prepare to support the meeting on July 13 and the continuation later that week prior to the submission deadline to the province on July 19, which by the time you read this has passed.  Some of the groups I spoke to expressed that the June 18 to July 19 time period was insufficient in length to prepare a suitable response to the province and that the September 2011 startup date of the new facility was too close time wise.  I will point out that the meeting notice did appear only in the July 8 West Carleton Review and on July 2 on Mr. El-Chantiry’s Ward website.  Bottom line, this window was tight and the Councillors provided appropriate notification given the June 18 date. 

I did find an article in the Ottawa Sun, on the expansion dated April 14 2010 which does mention by name and have quotes from councillors Qadri and El-Chantiry, so I suppose, I have to amend what I just said.

Garbage currently is regulated by the Province even though it is generated locally.  The province controls things like incineration too.  This is why the ToR goes to the province.  I will return to this at the end of this essay.

I spent some time looking at the City of Ottawa website on this issue.  I say looking, because the search engine doesn’t search so I had to brute force through 4 years of minutes of meetings.  I did find a couple items of interest.  On December 10, 2009, the Environmental Advisory Committee [EAC] stated:” that there were no further updates on the Carp landfill”.  The Planning and Environmental Committee [PEC] on October 13, 2009passed a motion stating:” The Task Force work cooperatively with the Ministry of the Environment to ensure the investigation of incineration proceeds and is included in any Terms of Reference for future landfill opening or expansion applications.”  The same committee, on 14 April 2009 referred to correspondence which stated:” noted Ottawa’s Integrated Waste Management Master Plan committed the City to divert over 50 per cent of its residential waste by now, and to reduce significantly ICI waste generated and disposed of in Ottawa.  He touched on the financial cost of an additional landfill, estimated at $100 million, with a 10-year process that would be very difficult on the community. “  It also discusses follow on actions.  On July 24, 2008, the EAC, in discussing the future mentions:” urban boundary expansion, development charges, next City landfill”.

The key document is a report to the PEC AND Council dated 15 March from the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services with regard to:” CARP LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)”.  The document states that:” The proposal within the ToR is to secure additional waste disposal capacity at or near the Carp Landfill. “   The April 13 issue of the West Carleton Review  in an article titled City Council meeting highlights  did mention the ToR.  Now the surprise, the items in this Paragraph took place in 2007, not 2010. Ultimately this ToR was withdrawn by WM on February  2009 with the following justification: “Due to the volume of comments received and the issues that were raised by government agencies and the public during the Terms of Reference (ToR) comment period, WMCC determined that the time remaining for the “time out” was not sufficient to address these concerns. As such, WMCC informed ministry staff that it is withdrawing its Ottawa Waste Management Facility ToR in order to revise the document and consult further with stakeholders.”

Bottom line on this is that it has been coming since 2007 with what would appear to have been numerous opportunities  for Councillors to keep residents appraised as to what is going on.   At this point in time, I believe the City is between the proverbial rock and hard place on this, and like it or not, the levels of government are almost out of time for any alternatives.  This seems to me not just the most recent, but the typical reactive style which certain members of City Council operate under.  If you want chance, a pro active city council rather than one that is trying to keep up appearances, you get to make that choice in October.

However, until then, if you feel strongly about this or any other issue, take your Council member to task.  It is, after all, their job to represent you.

Last, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. O’Brien has proposed bringing ‘waste/garbage’ to the level of City of Ottawa control from the province.  This is not a ‘trivial task, as it would required legislative changes, convincing the province to give up control of areas and the taxes that go with them like the [cancelled for now] “Eco Fee” to the City.  There is also a provincial election in 2011 so I would suspect this would be a 2012/2013 event if it happened.

There are a number of options which could be considered to significantly mitigate the impact of landfills.  One strategic and long term option is to adapt a Waste to Energy
System where the energy could be used to power the LRT.  I keep hearing about High Efficiency Incineration as an option.  Assuming some of the other issues such as smell are handled with proven technology, on significant issue remains, and that is the fact than incineration produces dioxins which are a very nasty byproduct.  Recent technical literature indicates that plasmafication can be used on Dioxin containing waste material from incinerators successfully.  My question is, why not just use Plasmafication as the one stop method for handling the City of Ottawa waste once the technology reaches a higher sate of maturity [2 to 4 years] with demonstrable, reliable and repeatable results.  Recycling could take a different slant and collection cost should be reduced.  Plasco’s Trail Road plant and their MOU with China suggest to me that strategically, this COULD be a solution which the city could have in place during this decade.   The new funding received by Plasco for emission filters Might just be the last piece of the puzzle.

What would I do if I was on Council?  First and foremost, I would have the city write the Government of Ontario at the staff, MPP and Ministerial levels looking for their support in allowing the City to implement the technology of its choice.  Mr. Qadri and Mr. El-Chantiry have both mentioned contacting the province about the waste issue.  I assume they, or staff have done so at their direction prior to now.  In addition, those of us who NOW are at arms length to the city can reach out to members of the opposition including any announced area candidates looking for their support on giving the city of Ottawa control over this issue.  If you don’t think a single voice matters, look at what happened with the “Eco-Tax”.   I would task staff with issuing a Request for Information on Landfill Alternatives and have either a current Environment Committee or a new “Trash and Diversion 2015” Committee be formed and mandated to update council quarterly as to what options exist  on the specified time horizon.

As for my statement on the current candidates pandering for votes, I invite you to review any of the July issues of the Kanata/Stitsville/West Carleton weekly papers solely on this issue.  To give an example, here are links for comments by Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Qadriand Mr. El-Chantiry .  They may have made other statements but these are ones that I have found.

From the article on Mr El-Chantiry you would think that he single handedly saved the city from being inundated with garbage.    I was at the meetings and have found what I think is a more representative report  on it.  Mr. El-Chantiry is not even mentioned.  I decided to look a little deeper into both the format and content of the comments made by non staff [ie council]. 

The Staff comments on the ToR are found here.  The disposition after the meeting is found here, and yes, it has a number of items identified.  As a matter of interest, let us take each line item in that document and back reference it.

  1. Conduct a Full Environmental Assessment/Alternate Disposal Techniques – The whole point of the ToR is to address the prerequesites of the EA.  As far as  the Alternate Disposal Techniques, Waste Management proposed doing this in the ToR and it was rejected by staff. Half marks for allowing something already offered in the original ToR.  Let us not forget, Waste management is a business and not likely to promote a competitors technology over their own.
  2. Good Neighbour Zone –Identified by staff  as last comment on section 4.2.  Stating it is city of Ottawa and country of Lanark simply gives WM the obvious answer.
  3. Statement of where the origin of the ICI waste sent to Carp road can be from – Page 3 of Appendix E in Supporting Document 3– Question 8 asks and answers this.
  4. Ground Water Impact – Identified in the ToR, Appendix B – Proposed Assessment Criteria – Page B-3.
  5. See d) above.
  6. Compensation Program for Residents within a 1 Km radius of the site -  Property Value Protection Plan identified in the ToR – Section 10.3 is an example.  Giving a distance in the reply would be regarded as positive guidance from the city and is now the distance WM will work to.  Staff have recommended in the comments for section 7.1 that the Vicinity be extended out to 1 Km.
  7. Diversion Rate Percentage –  Stated throughout the ToR based on the 2% Diversion Rate increase.  Graph on Page 2 of the May 2010 Presentation titled “Workshop on Project Rationale, Alternatives To, Alternative Methods & Evaluation Criteria” gives a clear time phased picture.  It should be noted the 400,000 is an average over 10 years and as indicated in the ToR, current levels might exceed that level as they have historically.  The 400k amount is based on 2003 to 2006 data where the average was 400k but the peak was 430k.  Identified in Section 2.6 of Support Document 1.
  8. Annual report to the city – The MOE, under ONTARIO REGULATION 232/98 section 20 and onward defines the requirement for, and contents of an annual report.  This is identified on page 52 of the ToR and Table 5-1 defines the need for an annual report and the location where it can be found online.
  9. Odour issues – WM has identified an odour management program to be administered by the 4 west end councillors in conjunction with WM in the ToR.
  10. Economic impact on Carp Road businesses – is there something over and above what is defined in table B-1 that is required by the MOE and missing?
  11. Consultation process – identified in the ToR

I could go on but the bottom line is I am underwhelmed by the substance of the comments.  I will leave it to you to draw your  own conclusion.

If you are interested in another example of an issue with how council works, also centered on this item. Please click here.