The City Of Ottawa is putting up a front regarding the Carp Mountain expansion plans that Waste Management has proposed.
I received the following email from Mayor Bob Chiarelli’s office. This came unsolicited as I had already received a reply to my original email, but I assume they are sending this out to everyone who complained about the dump expansion in an effort to look good before the pending municipal elections.
As you may or may not be aware, the City has said this is a Provincial matter, and the Province has said that it is a municipal matter. Talk about getting officially screwed twice on one subject!! I am making the assumption that this motion is supposed to be a token effort by our politicians to let everyone know they don’t want the dump. But it really just tells Waste Management to look at all options regarding the disposal of waste.
In case you were not aware, Waste Management can look all it wants but the bottom line is that they own the land, and can pretty much do what they want with it. If the City of Ottawa wanted to put some teeth into this, they would have made a motion simple. Something like “The City of Ottawa hereby agrees to take legal recourse should Waste Management expand the Carp Rd. landfill.” Period. Nothing more. Why they would sue, who they will include in the suit, what the basis of the suit is should be determined after a few dozen lawyers get together. Not after our City Council meets. If Waste Management knows they will have a lawsuit on their hands, albeit one they may win, they would still think twice about the expansion.The uproar over this site expansion is just starting. 1100 people packed a gym when the info session was held March 1st. To be honest, I think the residents should just email WM and tell they they will boycott using the Carp facility if they expand it. This may make WM turn to the alternatives like Plasma Gasification.
Ok, enough ranting. On to the email and motion the City has plans to put forward later this month.
Thank you for your e-mail regarding the proposed expansion of the Carp Landfill by Waste Management.
Mayor Chiarelli has called a special City Council meeting for late March for a discussion and a vote on the attached motion dealing with the Carp landfill.
The motion speaks to the concerns raised by our communities and also about the environmental challenges and solutions the City of Ottawa and its residents face in reducing, recycling and reusing our waste. This motion was drafted by Councillors Stavinga, El Chantiry, Feltmate, the Mayor, and the City’s Legal department.
While final approval for any expansion rests with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the City of Ottawa is an important stakeholder and will be involved at every stage of the proposal.
Mayor Chiarelli applauds your efforts in expressing concerns about an issue which is extremely important to all residents in our city.
Thank you,
Jacques Larouche (613) 580-2496
City Council and Standing Committee Motion
Conseil et comités permanents Motion
Moved by/ Motion de Councillor Stavinga
Seconded by/ Appuyée par Councillor El-Chantiry
RE: Carp Road Landfill
WHEREAS in mid-January, Waste Management of Canada Corp. (WM) announced its proposal to expand its Ottawa waste management facility (WMF), currently located near the intersection of Carp Road and Highway 417 to meet growing recycling, composting and landfill capacity needs;
AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa, through its Integrated Waste Management Master Plan, is taking steps to achieve a 60% waste diversion target; to monitor, test, evaluate and implement alternative technologies and other environmental initiatives for waste management; and to continue to reserve landfill disposal capacity within Ottawa for locally-generated solid waste;
AND WHEREAS WM has access to provincial legislation to apply for an expansion under the Environmental Assessment Act;
AND WHEREAS the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) establishes the framework for the preparation and review of an Environmental Assessment (EA);
AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa, Federal and Provincial agencies and local residents are key stakeholders in the development of the draft ToR for the Environmental Assessment for the proposed expansion of the WMF;
AND WHEREAS the draft ToR appears to indicate that WM will conduct a full EA, but the ToR is so finely focused on the existing site and lands in the immediate vicinity that WM is actually proposing to conduct a very limited, or “scoped”, EA and is therefore not in keeping with the spirit of the EA Act nor is it in accordance with the expectations of the Ministry of the Environment as outlined in its “Guide To Preparing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments, Draft” and “Guideline on Consultation in the Environmental Assessment Process, Draft”;
AND WHEREAS the draft ToR proposed by WM provides an Environmental Assessment framework that is limited in scope, unclear, imprecise and deficient in adhering to EA planning principles, and does not examine many important issues;
AND WHEREAS in the description of the undertaking, it is clear that WM intends to accept non-hazardous waste “generated in the Province of Ontario” and expand the current service area to include the Outauoais region of Quebec;
AND WHEREAS WM has made a public commitment to not accepting waste from Toronto at the WMF at Carp Road;
AND WHEREAS City Council is seriously concerned about the proposed expansion of service areas to Quebec and other parts of Ontario;
AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa and affected residents must have effective and meaningful input during all phases of the Environmental Assessment process;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa request that WM conduct the broadest Environmental Assessment to ensure the examination of all major issues including but not limited to an examination of other lands/facilities owned by WM in Ontario and Quebec, lands/facilities owned by the City of Ottawa, alternatives including emerging technologies such as waste diversion, incineration, energy from waste, stabilized landfilling, and plasma gasification;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the community, social, economic and environmental issues including but not limited to the listing in Schedule “A” be also incorporated in the review;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that effective and meaningful consultation (as further defined in Schedule “B”) on all aspects of the draft ToR and the EA be included as part of that process;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that WM be requested to redraft the proposed draft ToR so that all of the above concerns are included and that an independent peer review of both the draft Terms of Reference and the full Environmental Assessment be included as part of the workplan; and that the revised draft ToR and the draft EA be brought forward to Planning and Environment Committee and City Council for review prior to being submitted to the Ministry of the Environment;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in an effort to reinforce the need for each municipality in Ontario to work towards a home-grown solution for their own waste management issues, both WM and Ontario’s Minister of the Environment confirm in writing that the Carp Road Landfill will not be permitted to receive waste from an expanded service area, including Toronto, the GTA and the Province of Quebec, and that should any additional landfill capacity be approved anywhere in Ottawa, that the City retain 90% reserved capacity for Ottawa waste;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the staff report that is being prepared on the issue include a detailed explanation of the City’s plan and timelines to meet Ottawa’s 60% waste diversion target.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that WM be asked to agree to a facilitated Environmental Assessment process involving a broad representation of interested parties, including citizens, community associations, environmental and public health organizations, the City, local conservation authorities and WM.
SCHEDULE A
PRELIMINARY LIST OF COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS FOR THE DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
Issues include but are not limited to:
§ Social, economic and cultural impact assessment § Visual impact assessment § Groundwater/surface water impact assessment, including existing contamination issues § Impact on the development of the Ottawa/Carp Airport § Environmental health concerns, including odour, dust, noise, litter, migration of waste off site § Environmental and ecological impact assessment § Public health concerns § Height of the landfill § Leachate management § Traffic § Bird and pest control § Independent reporting/tracking of customer base, yearly tonnage and annual intake by source and origin, and waste mix § Alternative technologies/sites § Description of the geographic area SCHEDULE B – PRINCIPLES OF MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION
Meaningful consultation should, at a minimum, involve representatives of affected constituent groups and the wider community in meaningful dialogue with the proponent throughout the EA decision-making process.
The consultation process for the entire EA should adhere to the following guiding principles:
· identifying before undertaking the consultation the group(s) and/or individuals to be consulted; · build understanding (not just provision of information); · provide timely and adequate information for the purpose of the consultation; · seek best-balanced decisions for the undertaking, taking into account positive and negative impacts; · actively seek views and engage in dialogue with a variety of interested, affected groups and/or individuals and key sources of information; · respect opinions and input; · communicate clearly to all contributors the results, including the decision reached, the action taken, and the rationale for the decision; · include a means of assessing the effectiveness of the consultation, and to provide for follow-up; · recognize that constituent groups may have their own constraints (e.g., neighbours may be at a disadvantage because they lack independent advice on the EA process and the scientific · details of the EA impact assessment studies); and · include consultative dialogue consisting of mutual listening and sharing of information and views by the consulting body and the group(s) or individual(s) being consulted (e.g. workshops on specific topics for specific themes or interest areas)
For this process, meaningful consultation should include but not be limited to the following:
· Establishing a stakeholder liaison committee consisting of representatives from the local community and the City of Ottawa to liaise with the proponent and its consultants and have dialogue with government reviewers, at all stages in the EA.
· Conducting consultations on the work plans for the specific impact assessment studies – early in the EA, before those studies commence.
· Establishing milestones for tabling a draft of the EA for public comment
· Establishing the means for a meaningful dialogue with the public, including many or all of the following:
Ø newsletters/newspaper supplements that would serve to provide interested stakeholders with more detail than they would receive in a standard EA newspaper notice, but less detail than in an EA report component
Ø identifying and reaching out to interested citizen organizations to provide presentations or EA updates
Ø central public information centre where people can arrange to visit the proponent’s operations to learn more about the EA, read reports, drop off comments, etc.
Ø workshops with neighbours to enable them to meaningfully provide detailed input against each of the milestones, or on EA impact assessment work plans.
Ø plan to resolving issues with stakeholders Ø process identified for tracking – and sharing – issues and proponent responses to those issues so that all interested parties can participate in tracking how the proponent is addressing issues as the EA progresses
Ø provisions (or funding) for independent advice to be made available to stakeholders to help them understand the EA process
Ø provisions (or funding) for independent peer reviews of the EA criteria, impact assessment study work plans, or EA impact assessment reports
Ø reports to committees of Council and City Council
Ø provisions for reports/presentations/workshops for local environmental and community organizations that might normally be very interested in a EA of this nature (e.g. Ottawa Sierra Club, community associations)
Ø provisions for those immediately impacted by mitigation measures, impact management measures or possible compensation program(s) to be involved in consultation on the details of same |