AECOM Report 1 - Waste Management › wm › wcec › Supporting_Documents › 6 ›...

Appendix D Open House #2 Summary Report

Prepared by:

AECOM

302 - 1150 Morrison Drive 613 820 8282 tel

Ottawa, Ontario K2H 8S9 613 820 8338 fax

www.aecom.com

Project Number:

60116860

Date:

April, 2011

Environment

Waste Management of Canada Corporation

Public Open House Round 2 Sessions – Summary Report

AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Open House Round 2 Sessions – Summary Report

RPT-2011-04-14-FINAL WCEC EA Open House 2 Summary Report-60191228.Docx

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the

client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work

detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the

qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”)

represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the

preparation of similar reports

may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified

has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time

period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued

must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context

was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement

in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and

on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time

Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has

no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that

may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or

geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the

Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but

Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or

implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof.

The Report is to be treated as confidential and may not be used or relied upon by third parties, except:

as agreed in writing by Consultant and Client

as required by law

for use by governmental reviewing agencies

Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may

obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from

their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of

the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely

upon the Report and the Information. Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts thereof shall be

borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the

Report is subject to the terms hereof.


Table of Contents

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

page

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Objective of the Open Houses ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Date, Time and Location of the Open Houses .................................................................................... 1

2. Notification of Second Round of Public Open Houses ............................................................... 2

3. Project Team Members in Attendance .......................................................................................... 2

4. Information Presented .................................................................................................................... 3

5. Attendance ...................................................................................................................................... 4

5.1 Open House Location #1 ..................................................................................................................... 4 5.2 Open House Location #2 ..................................................................................................................... 4 5.3 Open House Location #3 ..................................................................................................................... 5 5.4 Open House Location #4 ..................................................................................................................... 5

6. Summary of Comments Received ................................................................................................. 5

List of Tables

Table 6-1 Comments Received at the Open Houses ................................................................................................ 6

Appendices

Appendix A. Notification of Open Houses

Appendix B. Open House Display Panels

Appendix C. Copy of Comment Sheet


1

1. Introduction

Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM), owners and operators of the existing Ottawa Waste Management

Facility (Ottawa WMF) have initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) seeking approval for a new landfill footprint

at the existing Ottawa WMF. The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed West Carleton

Environmental Centre (WCEC). The proposed WCEC will be an integrated waste management facility that will

include:

Waste diversion and recycling operations;

Composting operations;

Renewable energy facilities;

Recreational lands for community uses; and,

A new landfill footprint for disposal of residual waste materials.

Public and external agency consultation is a key component of EA’s and as such, has been incorporated into this

process. A Notice of Commencement for the EA of this project, inviting initial input, was issued on January 5, 2011

with the first round of Public Open Houses for the EA held in January 2011 and the first round of Workshops for the

EA held in February 2011. The second round of Public Open Houses ran from March 29-31 and April 7, 2011. This

Report provides a summary of the events that took place at the second round of Open Houses.

1.1 Objective of the Open Houses

The main objective of the Open Houses was to provide an opportunity for attendees to speak directly with staff

members about the alternative methods (landfill footprint alternatives) and ancillary facilities. Information on current

baseline studies, the approvals process and planned consultation activities was also provided. This round of Open

House events served to present a preliminary overview of existing conditions and to further refine the criteria,

indicators and measures proposed as part of the evaluation process.

Attendees were offered the opportunity to present their comments regarding the information directly to staff from

WM, AECOM, WESA, RWDI and FoTenn. This was especially useful for interested members of the public, as they

were able to speak directly with Project Team members on key aspects of the environment (i.e. air quality, odour,

groundwater, etc) they were concerned about. Further, members of the public were able to provide input on refining

the criteria, indicators and measures proposed as part of the evaluation process. This interaction allowed for an

exchange of information that can be used to enhance the overall project.

1.2 Date, Time and Location of the Open Houses

The second round of Public Open Houses ran as follows:

1. Tuesday, March 29th – West Carleton Amateur Sports Club, Carp, ON.

2. Wednesday, March 30th – Lions Den, Kanata, ON.

3. Thursday, March 31st – Stittsville Legion, Stittsville, ON.

4. Thursday, April 7th – Stittsville Legion, Stittsville, ON.

All four of the Open Houses commenced at 4:00 p.m. and ran until 8:00 p.m.


2

All Open Houses followed a drop-in format, with the information illustrated on a set of display panels arranged

around the perimeter of the room. As mentioned above, Project Team members representing a variety of disciplines

were available to answer questions from attendees.

2. Notification of Second Round of Public Open Houses

Notification of the Open Houses was provided through newspaper publications during the weeks of March 14th and

March 21st in the Stittsville News, the West Carleton Weekender, the Kanata Kourier Standard, EMC Kanata, EMC

Stittsville and EMC West Carleton.

Notification was also provided to all interested persons who are on WM’s stakeholder distribution list through an E-

blast and direct mailing to properties surrounding the landfill.

A notification letter/email was sent to First Nations representatives and affiliated agencies as well as to the

Government Review Team (GRT).

Copies of these letters and the newspaper notice are found in Appendix A.

3. Project Team Members in Attendance

The following project team members were in attendance at the Open Houses to answer questions:

OPEN HOUSE #1 – WEST CARLETON AMATEUR SPORTS CLUB, CARP

WM Consulting Team

Tim Murphy

Cathy Smithe

Ross Wallace

Remi Godin

Wayne French

Reid Cleland

Bill McDonough

AECOM

Larry Fedec

Blair Shoniker

Catherine Parker

Erika Brown

Valerie McGirr

FoTenn

Michelle Armstrong

RWDI

John DeYoe

WESA

Dave Harding

OPEN HOUSE #2 – LIONS DEN, KANATA

WM Consulting Team

Tim Murphy

Cathy Smithe

Ross Wallace

Wayne French

Wayne Jenken

Remi Godin

Reid Cleland

Bill McDonough

AECOM

Larry Fedec

Blair Shoniker

Catherine Parker

Erika Brown

Valerie McGirr

FoTenn

Michelle Armstrong

RWDI

John DeYoe

WESA

Dave Harding


3

OPEN HOUSE #3 – STITTSVILLE LEGION, STITTSVILLE

WM Consulting Team

Tim Murphy

Cathy Smithe

Ross Wallace

Wayne French

Remi Godin

Bill McDonough

AECOM

Larry Fedec

Blair Shoniker

Catherine Parker

Erika Brown

Valerie McGirr

Tomasz Wlodarczyk

FoTenn

Michelle Armstrong

RWDI

John DeYoe

Brad Bergeron

WESA

Dave Harding

OPEN HOUSE #4 – STITTSVILLE LEGION, STITTSVILLE

WM Consulting Team

Tim Murphy

Cathy Smithe

Ross Wallace

Wayne French

Remi Godin

Don Wright

AECOM

Larry Fedec

Blair Shoniker

Catherine Parker

Valerie McGirr

FoTenn

Michelle Armstrong

WESA

Dave Harding

4. Information Presented

Information presented at the Open Houses was in the form of display boards arranged around the room and

organized to take the viewer through the process from project introduction through the Alternative Methods, Criteria,

and Indicators, current baseline studies, the approvals process, and the next steps. This information included:

Background information on the WCEC’s various components and an artist’s rendering of the proposed

facility;

A flow chart of the EA process;

Description of the consultation program;

Results from previous consultation events;

A description of Alternative Methods and how they were identified;

Map defining the Potential Footprint Envelopes;

A description of the Evaluation Methodology for the Alternative Methods;

Description of the Evaluation Criteria and Indicators for comparing the Alternative Methods;

Description of the Work Plans and the tasks needed to complete them;

Baseline Conditions for:

Atmospheric Environment – Air Quality, Dust, Odour and Noise;

Geology and Hydrogeology (including a figure depicting the Contamination Attenuation Zone or CAZ);

Surface Water Resources;

Natural Environment – Vegetation and Wildlife;

Cultural and Built Heritage Resources;

Archaeological Resources;

Agriculture;

Transportation, including collision data and traffic counts;

Land Use;

Visual Conditions;


4

Socio-Economic;

Site Design and Operations;

A typical cross section of the existing and proposed landfills;

Maps displaying the four landfill footprint options;

The next steps in the process;

Closure of the current landfill;

Copies of the display panels are included in Appendix B.

5. Attendance

Over the course of the second set of Open Houses, there were a total of approximately 127 attendees. Details

about the individual Open Houses are outlined below.

Attendees were encouraged to provide written comments on the comment sheets provided.

With the exception of those that requested to be left off, all individuals and/or agency representatives who signed in

with their contact information have been added to the project-specific contact database. This database will be used

during the remaining phases of the study to contact/inform interested public and key stakeholders of study issues

and events.

All meetings included a balance of first-time attendees and return attendees from the previous Open Houses and

Workshops held in 2010 and early 2011. The tone remained respectful and engaged at all Open Houses, allowing

for an exchange of dialogue between staff and attendees in all cases.

5.1 Open House Location #1

A total of 26 people attended the first Open House, held in Carp. Those in attendance were largely local residents

and landowners, existing members of the Carp Landfill Community Liaison Committee (CLCLC) and a small number

of local business owners. Local Councillors also attended the Open House. Comments and concerns raised by

attendees included questions on property value protection, traffic, footprint location, wetland protection, landfill

height, visual impact, site life, and post closure use. Four comment forms were provided and four people signed-up

for the upcoming project workshop.


A total of 23 people attended the second Open House, held in Kanata. Those in attendance were largely local

residents and landowners, members of the CLCLC and a small number of local business owners. Local Councillors

also attended the Open House. Feedback was both positive and negative, with concerns ranging from traffic,

property value, footprint area, landfill height, visual impact, site life and post closure use. Some opposed to the

undertaking felt that it would negatively impact the community and that the location should be outside of the urban

area. No comment forms were submitted and three individuals signed-up for the upcoming project workshop.


5


A total of 18 people attended the third Open House, held in Stittsville. Those in attendance were largely local

residents and landowners and a small number of local business owners. One local Councillor and a staff

representative from MOE were in attendance for this session as well. Comments and concerns raised by attendees

included property value protection, groundwater, footprint area, landfill height, odour and air quality, visual impact,

site life, and post closure use. Overall, there was good dialogue between the staff and the attendees with many first

time attendees asking questions about the EA process. Questions and comments were similar to the previous two

events, which were a mix of support and opposition. Two comment forms were submitted and four individuals

signed-up for the upcoming project workshop.


A total of 60 people attended the third Open House, held in Stittsville. Those in attendance were largely local

residents and landowners, members of the CLCLC and a small number of local business owners. One local

Councillor was in attendance for this session as well. Comments and concerns raised by attendees included

property value protection, groundwater, footprint area, landfill height, odour and air quality, visual impact, site life,

and post closure use. Overall, there was good dialogue between the staff and the attendees with many first time

attendees asking questions about the EA process. Questions and comments were similar to the previous 3 events,

which were a mix of support and opposition. Seventeen comment forms were submitted and six individuals signed-

up for the upcoming project workshop.

6. Summary of Comments Received

In total, 23 comment sheets were received at the Open Houses, and 16 comments were received by e-mail. A copy

of the comment sheet used at the open houses is included in Appendix C. The following Table summarizes the

main issues raised:


6

Table 6-1 Comments Received at the Open Houses

1. Comments/Refinements on the Alternative Landfill Footprints

All options are unacceptable.

Look at alternative sites, should have been considered rather than expansion

at the current location. The current location is too close to an expanding

rural urban city. I fear that the proposed 8.5 storey hill will soon change to 14

stories or higher. It is obvious the footprint is much larger than the existing

site.

I have not seen or heard any new information that would convince me that

WM should receive approval to expand the landfill site as outlines any of 4

proposals. The site should be closed down effective September 2011.

I am against the expansion of the landfill! Why is there no alternative site

considered outside of Ottawa’s residential areas?

West site basically site on top of Provincially Significant wetland and blocks

flow from it to the creeks draining and flowing into Carp River.

Don’t like any of them. Adverse impacts on my property.

Yes, none, not any, not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, none! No Landfill expansion

ever.

None – Landfill is obsolete waste disposal methodology. This should be

about creative innovation and new technology – not justifying an

environmentally unfriendly object of visual (and literal) pollution. It’s a dump

people, no matter how much you try to dress it up.

I don’t like any of these alternatives.

I do not want any landfill in the City of Ottawa/Stittsville.

It was not my understanding that the public who attended Workshop #1 were

looking for two additional footprints on the same property.

Insufficient data was provided to assess any footprints.

2. Preference for any of the Alternative Landfill Footprints?

Any vertical or horizontal expansion of the existing facility is unacceptable.

Don’t have a preference for any of the new ones; Option #2 is still the best if

push comes to shove. Ideally none!

No – I do not support any expansion.

No, I would rather see it relocated. I am very concerned about land/house

values as a resident of Stittsville.

Regardless of what option is put forward the critical issues have not been

addressed. Eg. Traffic on Carp Road and Richardson Side Road – neither

are capable of carrying more truck traffic and cannot handle cresting levels.

Look at an alternative site at least 10 kilometres from residential areas.

My preference is no landfill. The proposed site is the wrong geology for a

landfill, will sit over a leachate plume so it will be impossible to tell if there is a

liner leak from a new landfill.

2 and 3, keep away from the wetlands.

No preference for the 2 new footprints presented. If one option has to be

selected, then Option #2.

No – all will adversely affect my water quality, land/property value, home

safety (transportation).

Yes, I have a preference for the landfill alternatives which are not close to the

waterbodies (2 and 3 are farther away). Our drinking water is already sketchy

enough…

Yes, none of the above.

Close the current landfill and do not open any others. Consider plasma

gasification.

Look at an alternative landfill footprint outside of Ottawa even if this means

Waste Management must purchase property - so an objective assessment

can be done.

Neither.

3. Comments on Criteria presented? New Criteria that should be added?

General tidiness of the surrounding area, eg. Wind blown debris, etc.

Need to expand existing conditions area to include local residences, local

neighbourhoods, such as well water quality and quantity. Property values –

pre/post landfill. Surface water – pre/post landfill on Huntley Creek. Wildlife

No, but social component must be a major consideration.

I would like to see more about what a citizen/business/company can do to

divert waste from landfills and lessen their own ecological footprint. Don’t

focus on the fact that we need another landfill, balance Open House with


7

impacts – local, Huntley Creek.

Combustion components need to be included. Missing methane gas

measurements – this needs to be included. Methane is a stronger global

warming factor than carbon dioxide. Air quality – where are the studies?

Why aren’t the numbers from these studies posted at the Open House?

Where are the measurements taken on the existing site? Data is required in

the envelope defined by the 2007 odour reporting numbers. The numerical

modeling needs to be calibrated against the 2007 odour reporting locations

and existing conditions to show it is adequate. As a mechanical engineer

with extensive computation fluid dynamics experience, I know how important

calibration is.

Land use impact on other commercial enterprises: in the summer I change

my shopping patterns so I do not have to drive past the Carp dump (yes, it

still smells). I do not shop in Stittsville in the summer as a result.

Move to another location outside of Ottawa area.

waste diversion and smart consumption. (PLASCO process?)

I do not believe that Phase I was properly completed – baseline conditions

were not adequately researched or communicated.

Yes, I have attended all and the reality of the will of the people are not shown

in any of your reports. No expansion.

Impacts on property values and sociological impacts (ie. living next

to/downwind of a dump).

Need an explanation about past, present and future “partnerships” with the

City of Ottawa. Tim Murphy indicated that the company lost the trust of the

citizens in the surrounding area. What specific steps will the company take to

try to regain the trust and what role will the public play in this important matter

of trust and accountability?

The proposed additional criteria seems to be very last minute type

ideas/solutions. The wetlands to the south west at edge of the 417 corridor

are now a concern when considering these 2 additional proposals.

4. Criteria/Indicators that are more important to you than others?

Air quality and odour, groundwater (well contamination), traffic – already

dangerous on Carp Road.

Yes, social.

Property values, surface and groundwater quality and quantity.

No, please consider a site/location other than Carp/417. You must have a

plan beyond Carp Rd.

Smell, noxious groundwater and reduced property values not welcome in this

community!

Yes, atmospheric environment (air quality, noise, odour), ground water, traffic

Wildlife and aquatic features and natural science indicators are more

important to me than anything. Biodiversity is essential to a healthy

ecosystem. People take it for granted.

Yes, that you are presenting any alternatives to closing not expanding.

The citizens surrounding the current landfill have done their share of

responsibility. Why should we move? It is time for other citizens to do their

share with respect to waste.

5. Any information related to the existing conditions to add?

Please add comparison data from other existing sites – that is odour from a

current operational site and how far does it travel, what chemicals are in it,

impact from putting new landfill on existing groundwater problems, what were

the effects, etc.

No. I have a question – when will it be complete and please show me what it

might look like in 10 and 25 y ears from now.

Well water measurements (level, volume flow, chemical composition) should

be done for wells that are located 1000 m from the study site and the edge of

the existing leachate plume. If the existing purgewwell system is working so

well, then why has WM recently purchased more CAZ lands and why is WM

negotiating to buy more CAS land across Carp Road?

I was led to believe that the facility was to close in 2011. This closure is the

only acceptable option.

There are Spring Peepers in study area. Need to expand the area where

existing conditions are established.

The flame breaks down and we are back to the stink. The view is horrible.

The traffic dangerous. You have not done what you said you would do.

No, close the current dump.

No, I am not an expert.

Phase I is not complete


8

6. Additional existing conditions that should be addressed?

Property value protection plan. Recreational facilities do not count as

property value protection.

My well water quality and quantity – beyond study area. Mine and other’s

property values – pre/post (estimated). Surface water – off-site.

Transportation – Carp Road from the current landfill to Richardson Side Rd is

very narrow, has very little lighting and is not very safe with the trucks from

WM and from the Quarry across the road. How will the increase in WM

trucks impact the future transportation needs? I would want to see better

lighting all the way to Richardson Side Road from the entrance and a turning

lane into the site.

Property value, how the impact (eg. Decrease in value) is going to be

measured? What is done to address this? Building parks won’t cut it!

Incineration and CH4 gas capture. What will be done with the closed down

landfill? Ski hill?

No expansion. Alternative methods of disposal. No new boils on the

backside of our land!

I would like the height of the current mountain to be reduced.

7. Additional comments regarding the West Carleton Environmental Centre Environmental Assessment?

Please add comparison data from existing operational sites. Close area, do

intake to eastern Ontario, not all of Ontario. Must provide significant diversion

of garbage, not default to landfill only.

I think the input so far has been used wisely and the last or final location of

this expansion seems very creditable.

I was absolutely shocked to hear (see) for the very first time that WM owns

the properties on the east side of Carp Road eg. Spratt and the cement works

– talk about disclosure.

Land use map is missing commercial enterprise on south-west corner of Carp

and Richardson. Missing handouts on Land Use. Is “site vicinity” existing

site or the study site? This is not clear in info panels – confusing. 1500 m

regional study area is not large enough as impact of landfill extends further

than 1500 m. Kanata is east, north-east and south-east of study site. Socio-

economic – although only required to study to 500m from the site, this is not

large enough of a study zone as the socio-economic impact extends much

further. 16 residences within current site? Irrelevant as should be study site.

How many within 500 m of the study site? 1000 m? 1500 m? 2000 m?

3000 m? These numbers should be included to provide a true indicaton of

the impact.

Very informative – thank you!

We feel that this facility should include capability for hazardous waste drop-off

during normal work hours.

Yes. It is directed misinformation. No real alternatives. No evidence a new

expanded landfill will increase the value of our property. If ever there was a

company who protects themselves, you would win the prize. You know what

you want, what you are going to do to get what you want and it is at the cost

of human factor. You only consider as to how long it will take to outlast

concerned citizens.

How about the decreased property values because of extension of dump?

It’s a PR exercise, and a misleading one at that – part of a strategy to wear

down local resistance and encourage “battle fatigue”. We’re still going to fight

you, using whatever levels of power are needed.

I do not support any expansion of the landfill. I want us to introduce high

efficiency waste incineration to deal with our garbage and waste. Not only

would this address the problems associated with landfills, it would provide a

renewable source of electric power.

Think 100 years ahead, not just 20-40.

You have still not address why it is okay to expand a landfill on fractured

limestone when the ministry would not even consider this appliaton if it was

considered to be a new landfill. This is not being a responsible corporate

citizen!

The site is not suitable for a landfill at all.

Appendix A Notification of Open House #2

Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint

at the West Carleton Environmental Centre OPEN HOUSE #2

Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) are undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA) seeking approval for a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (Ottawa WMF). The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC). The proposed WCEC will be an integrated waste management facility that will include:

A new landfill footprint for disposal of residual waste materials; Waste diversion and recycling operations; Composting Operations; Renewable energy facilities; and, Recreational lands for community uses.

The new landfill footprint is the only component of the WCEC that requires EA approval under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The proposed location of the WCEC and the new landfill footprint component is within the City of Ottawa in the area shown on the map below. The purpose of the EA is to study the potential

environmental effects (positive or negative) of the proposed new landfill footprint. Key components of an EA include consultation with government agencies and the public; consideration and evaluation of alternatives; and, the management of potential environmental effects. Conducting an EA promotes good environmental planning before decisions are made about a proposal.

Consultation WM recently held a series of Public Open House events as well as a Workshop to discuss the EA for the proposed landfill footprint and other ancillary facilities to be located at the WCEC. As part of the next phase of the EA, WM will be hosting a series of Open Houses scheduled for the week of March 29th - 31st, 2011. The specific dates, times and locations for the second round of Public Open Houses are as follows:

Tuesday March 29, 2011 Wednesday March 30, 2011 Thursday March 31, 2011 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.

West Carleton Amateur Sports Club

3790 Carp Road, Carp

Lion’s Den 160 Castlefrank Road, Kanata

Stittsville Legion 1481 Stittsville Main Street,

Stittsville

The WCEC Open House #2 sessions will provide an opportunity for attendees to speak directly with WM and the consulting team on the alternative methods of proceeding with the new landfill and ancillary facilities. This will also provide an opportunity to further refine the criteria, indicators and measures proposed as part of the evaluation process. Information on current studies (baseline studies), the approval process and future planned consultation activities will also be provided. Your input at this Open House will be reviewed and incorporated by WM and the Project Team in the development of a Recommended Alternative for the new landfill footprint at the WCEC.

In addition to attending the public open house and workshop events, you are invited to submit your comments via the project website (http://wcec.wm.com), mail, email or fax to the address/number published below. We will also receive your comments on our project information line at (613) 836-8610.

Ross Wallace Site Manager

Waste Management 2301 Carp Road

Carp, Ontario, K0A 1L0 Fax: (613) 831-8928

E-mail: [email protected]

Cathy Smithe Community Relations Manager

Waste Management 254 Westbrook Road



Please note that information related to this Study will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments received will become part of the public record and may be included in Study documentation prepared for public review.

Get Involved….Have Your Say!

http://wcec.wm.com/

mailto:[email protected]


Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint

at the West Carleton Environmental Centre OPEN HOUSE #2 – Additional Session

Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) are undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA) seeking approval for a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (Ottawa WMF). The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC). The proposed WCEC will be an integrated waste management facility that will include:

A new landfill footprint for disposal of residual waste materials;

Waste diversion and recycling operations;

Composting Operations;

Renewable energy facilities; and,

Recreational lands for community uses.

The new landfill footprint is the only component of the WCEC that requires EA approval under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The proposed location of the WCEC and the new landfill footprint component is within the City of Ottawa in the area shown on the map below. The purpose of the EA is to study the potential

environmental effects (positive or negative) of the proposed new landfill footprint. Key components of an EA include consultation with government agencies and the public; consideration and evaluation of alternatives; and, the management of potential environmental effects. Conducting an EA promotes good environmental planning before decisions are made about a proposal.

Consultation WM recently held a series of Public Open House events as well as a Workshop to discuss the EA for the proposed landfill footprint and other ancillary facilities to be located at the WCEC. As part of the next phase of the EA, WM is hosting a series of Open Houses scheduled for the week of March 29

th - 31

st, 2011. An additional Open

House has now been added. The specific date, time and location of this additional Open House is as follows:

Thursday April 7, 2011

4 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Stittsville Legion 1481 Stittsville Main Street,

Stittsville

The WCEC Open House #2 sessions will provide an opportunity for attendees to speak directly with WM and the consulting team on the alternative methods of proceeding with the new landfill and ancillary facilities. This will also provide an opportunity to further refine the criteria, indicators and measures proposed as part of the evaluation process. Information on current studies (baseline studies), the approval process and future planned consultation activities will also be provided. Your input at this Open House will be reviewed and incorporated by WM and the Project Team in the development of a Recommended Alternative for the new landfill footprint at the WCEC.

In addition to attending the public open house and workshop events, you are invited to submit your comments via the project website (http://wcec.wm.com), mail, email or fax to the address/number published below. We will also receive your comments on our project information line at (613) 836-8610.

Ross Wallace Site Manager

Waste Management 2301 Carp Road



Cathy Smithe Community Relations Manager

Waste Management 254 Westbrook Road



Please note that information related to this Study will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments received will become part of the public record and may be included in Study documentation prepared for public review.

Get Involved….Have Your Say!

http://wcec.wm.com/



Appendix B Open House Display Panels

Waste Management of Canada CorporationWaste Management of Canada Corporation g p(WMCC)(WMCC)(WMCC)

is pleased to welcome you to the second Openis pleased to welcome you to the second Open p y pHouse for the West Carleton EnvironmentalHouse for the West Carleton Environmental

C t (WCEC) E i t l A t (EA)Centre (WCEC) Environmental Assessment (EA)Centre (WCEC) Environmental Assessment (EA)

Pl t k f t t b th di l t i lPlease take a few moments to browse the display material p yd t lk t t ff d lt tand talk to our staff and consultants.

Development of Terms of Reference for anDevelopment of Terms of Reference for an EA f P d N L dfillProposed West Carleton Environmental CentreEA of Proposed New Landfillp

WCEC at a GlanceWCEC at a GlanceWCEC at a GlanceWCEC at a GlanceWCEC at a GlanceWCEC at a Glance

The WCEC is an integrated multi purpose waste managementThe WCEC is an integrated multi-purpose waste management facility to serve the waste generators within the City of Ottawa andfacility to serve the waste generators within the City of Ottawa and the surrounding communities.the surrounding communities.

The WCEC will include:The WCEC will include:� Waste diversion;� Waste diversion;� Renewable energy;� Renewable energy;� Waste disposal;� Waste disposal;� Environmental areas, and;� Environmental areas, and;� C it� Community uses. y

The waste disposal component of the West Carleton EnvironmentalThe waste disposal component of the West Carleton Environmental Centre will include a new state-of-the-art environmentallyCentre will include a new, state of the art, environmentally

i d l dfill th t ill i t i l th t t b di t dengineered landfill that will receive materials that cannot be diverted gtowards re use recovery or recycling It is this undertaking thattowards re-use, recovery or recycling. It is this undertaking that requires EA approvalrequires EA approval.

Ab i ti t d i f th d f ilit hi h hAb i ti t d i f th d f ilit hi h hAbove�is�an�artist�rendering�of�the�proposed�facility�which�may�change�Above�is�an�artist�rendering�of�the�proposed�facility�which�may�change�throughout�the�consultation�process.throughout�the�consultation�process.g pg p


P d W t C l tP d W t C l tProposed West CarletonProposed West CarletonProposed West CarletonProposed West CarletonProposed West Carleton Proposed West Carleton ppEn ironmental CentreEn ironmental CentreEnvironmental CentreEnvironmental CentreEnvironmental CentreEnvironmental CentreEnvironmental CentreEnvironmental Centre

Ab i ti t d i f th d f ilit hi h hAb i ti t d i f th d f ilit hi h hAbove�is�an�artist�rendering�of�the�proposed�facility�which�may�change�Above�is�an�artist�rendering�of�the�proposed�facility�which�may�change�g f p p f y y gth h t th lt ti

g f p p f y y gth h t th lt tithroughout�the�consultation�process.throughout�the�consultation�process.g pg p

Following approval of the Terms of Reference (TOR) by the Minister ofFollowing approval of the Terms of Reference (TOR) by the Minister of th E i t d th d l t f lt ti l dfill f t i tthe Environment, and the development of alternative landfill footprints, p pthe next step in the EA process involves conducting studies to confirm thethe next step in the EA process involves conducting studies to confirm the

i i i l di i i h S d A F h diexisting environmental conditions in the Study Area. From these studies, g y ,impacts on the environment for each alternative landfill footprint (onceimpacts on the environment for each alternative landfill footprint (once finalized) can be assessed and compared in order to identify thefinalized) can be assessed and compared in order to identify the P f d Alt ti M th d f i t th U d t kiPreferred Alternative Method of carrying out the Undertaking. y g g


Consultation ProgramConsultation ProgramConsultation ProgramConsultation ProgramConsultation ProgramConsultation Program

Open House #2 – Alternative Landfill Footprint OptionsOpen House #2 – Alternative Landfill Footprint OptionsEA O H #2 ill id t it f tt d t k di tl ithEA Open House #2 will provide an opportunity for attendees to speak directly with p p pp y p yWMCC and the consulting team on the alternative methods (landfill footprintWMCC and the consulting team on the alternative methods (landfill footprint

lt ti ) d ill f iliti Thi ill l id t it t f thalternatives) and ancillary facilities. This will also provide an opportunity to further ) y p pp yrefine the criteria indicators and measures proposed as part of the evaluationrefine the criteria, indicators and measures proposed as part of the evaluation

I f ti t t di (b li t di ) l dprocess. Information on current studies (baseline studies), approval process and planned consultation activities will also be providedplanned consultation activities will also be provided.

Workshop #2 – Evaluation MethodologyWorkshop #2 – Evaluation MethodologyW k h #2 ill di th ti l ti th d l d i itWorkshop #2 will discuss the comparative evaluation methodology and invite p p gyparticipants to provide input on the relative importance of evaluation criteriaparticipants to provide input on the relative importance of evaluation criteria.

O H #3 E i ti C diti d C ti E l tiOpen House #3 – Existing Conditions and Comparative EvaluationOpen House #3 will present a summary of studies describing existingOpen House #3 will present a summary of studies describing existing environmental conditions The comparative evaluation methodology as well as theenvironmental conditions. The comparative evaluation methodology as well as the Preferred Alternative Method will be presented.Preferred Alternative Method will be presented.

Workshop #3 – Comparative Evaluation and Preferred AlternativeWorkshop #3 – Comparative Evaluation and Preferred AlternativeW k h #3 ill i it ti i t t di d id i t t th tiWorkshop #3 will invite participants to discuss and provide input to the comparative p p p p p pevaluation of Alternative Methods and identification of a preferred alternativeevaluation of Alternative Methods and identification of a preferred alternative.

Open House #4 Impact Assessment of the Preferred AlternativeOpen House #4 – Impact Assessment of the Preferred AlternativeEA Open House #4 will present the comparative evaluation of Alternative Methods Ope ouse # p ese t t e co pa at e e a uat o o te at e et ods(landfill footprints) and will identify a Preferred Alternative Method (footprint)(landfill footprints) and will identify a Preferred Alternative Method (footprint). Further, this Open House will present the detailed impact assessment results of the , p p ppreferred alternative for each discipline on the Project Team and the cumulativepreferred alternative for each discipline on the Project Team and the cumulative i f l dfill f i d h j i h f i himpact assessments of a new landfill footprint and other projects in the future in the p p p jarea Renderings and visualizations of the Preferred Alternative Method will alsoarea. Renderings and visualizations of the Preferred Alternative Method will also b t dbe presented.p

O H # EA ROpen House #5 – EA Reportp pEA Open House #5 will present a summary of the EA ReportEA Open House #5 will present a summary of the EA Report.

Consultation events are your opportunity to get involved in the EA process to let usConsultation�events�are�your�opportunity�to�get�involved�in�the�EA�process�to�let�us�k d d b h d d l hknow�your�opinion�and�ideas�about�the�proposed�development�at�the�Ottawa�site.


Results from PreviousResults from PreviousResults from PreviousResults from PreviousResults from Previous Results from Previous C lt ti E tC lt ti E tConsultation EventsConsultation EventsConsultation Events Consultation Events

Prior to Open House #2 two consultation events have taken place forPrior to Open House #2, two consultation events have taken place for the WCEC EA Public input was sought during both events throughthe WCEC EA. Public input was sought during both events through

t h t d kb k d i d th h t th EAcomment sheets and workbooks, and is encouraged throughout the EA , g gprocess via the project website and email address Modifications to theprocess via the project website and email address. Modifications to the EA inspired by public input are detailed below.EA inspired by public input are detailed below.

� N tifi ti WM h h d th� Notification process - WM has changed the� Notification process WM has changed the tifi ti t l f f t O H dnotification protocol for future Open House andnotification protocol for future Open House and

W k h t f llWorkshop events as follows:Workshop events as follows:� Ad ti t i th l l kl� Advertisements in the local weekly newspapers� Advertisements in the local weekly newspapers

(t t ti k )(to run two consecutive weeks)(to run two consecutive weeks)� M il d t id t di th� Mail-drop to residents surrounding the� Mail drop to residents surrounding the

( d d i ti ) l dfill(proposed and existing) landfill(proposed and existing) landfill� E il t t ll i di id l li t d� E-mail sent to all individuals listed on our� E mail sent to all individuals listed on our

t t d t bcontact databasecontact database

� C it i /I di t Additi l C it i d I di t� Criteria/Indicators – Additional Criteria and Indicators� Criteria/Indicators Additional Criteria and Indicators h b t d b t k h ld th t WM illhave been suggested by stakeholders that WM willhave been suggested by stakeholders that WM will i t i t th l ti i l diincorporate into the evaluation, including:incorporate into the evaluation, including:� Eff t R id ti l d C i l� Effects on Residential and Commercial� Effects on Residential and Commercial

D l tDevelopmentDevelopment� Eff t P t T R th Cit f� Effects on Property Tax Revenue on the City of� Effects on Property Tax Revenue on the City of

OttOttawaOttawa

� Additi l L dfill F t i t O ti S ti� Additional Landfill Footprint Options – Suggestions� Additional Landfill Footprint Options Suggestionsd dditi l l dfill f t i t tiwere made on additional landfill footprint options,were made on additional landfill footprint options,

t d i O ti #3 d O ti #4presented in Option #3 and Option #4.presented in Option #3 and Option #4.


Alternative MethodsAlternative MethodsAlternative MethodsAlternative MethodsAlternative MethodsAlternative Methods

“Alternative Methods” is the assessment of different ways ofAlternative Methods is the assessment of different ways of implementing the proposed undertaking. For example, the proposed newimplementing the proposed undertaking. For example, the proposed new landfill footprint for residual waste could be constructed in differentlandfill footprint for residual waste could be constructed in different locations and configurations (size height etc ) at the WCEClocations and configurations (size, height, etc.) at the WCEC.

Identifying Alternative MethodsIdentifying Alternative Methods� The approved TOR identified the study area within which the� The approved TOR identified the study area, within which the

Alternative Methods have been identified, and is bounded on theAlternative Methods have been identified, and is bounded on the southeast and southwest sides of Highway 417; on the northeast bysoutheast and southwest sides of Highway 417; on the northeast by Carp Road; and on the northwest by Richardson Side RoadCarp Road; and on the northwest by Richardson Side Road.

� Two landfill footprint envelopes located North and West of the� Two landfill footprint envelopes, located North and West of the existing landfill, have been identified in consideration of the followingexisting landfill, have been identified in consideration of the following constraints:constraints:• Ownership of land by WMCC or the option to purchase landOwnership of land by WMCC or the option to purchase land,

Existing natural environment features• Existing natural environment features, • Land use constraints,Land use constraints, • Perimeter buffer zones• Perimeter buffer zones

� I iti ll t l dfill f t i t ti h b id tifi d ( ithi� Initially, two landfill footprint options have been identified (one within y p p (each envelope) comprising the Alternative Methods These footprintseach envelope) comprising the Alternative Methods. These footprints were designed with the following design parameters:were designed with the following design parameters:• Size 6 5 million m3 (as per the approved TOR)• Size – 6.5 million m3 (as per the approved TOR)• Height – Approximately 28 mg pp y• Side slopes 4:1• Side slopes – 4:1

� A comparative evaluation of alternative landfill footprints will be� A comparative evaluation of alternative landfill footprints will be conducted following Workshop #2 and an impact assessment on theconducted following Workshop #2 and an impact assessment on the

f d l dfill f t i t ill b i d t i b t t fpreferred landfill footprint will be carried out in subsequent stages of p p q gthe EAthe EA.

� A t f th ti l t f th l dfill f t i t l h t� As part of the operational component of the landfill footprint, leachate p p p ptreatment alternatives will also be identified and assessedtreatment alternatives will also be identified and assessed.

� The preferred landfill footprint will be refined and finalized in� The preferred landfill footprint will be refined and finalized in consultation with the public Government Review Team (GRT) Firstconsultation with the public, Government Review Team (GRT), First N ti iti d th t k h ld d i th EANations communities and other stakeholders during the EA process.g p


Potential LandfillPotential LandfillPotential LandfillPotential LandfillPotential Landfill Potential Landfill Footprint EnvelopesFootprint EnvelopesFootprint EnvelopesFootprint EnvelopesFootprint EnvelopesFootprint Envelopes


Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #1

Existing LandfillApprox. 47 metres/14 stories

Option 1 ProposedApprox. 28 metres/8.5 stories









Option 4 ProposedNorth PortionApprox. 19 metres/6 storiesWest PortionApprox. 27 metres/8 stories

Alternative MethodsAlternative MethodsAlternative Methods –Alternative Methods –Alternative MethodsAlternative MethodsEvaluation MethodologyEvaluation MethodologyEvaluation MethodologyEvaluation Methodologygygy

A comparative evaluation of alternative landfill footprints will beA comparative evaluation of alternative landfill footprints will be d t d d i t t th f d l dfill f t i tconducted and an impact assessment on the preferred landfill footprint p p p

will be carried out in subsequent stages of the EA A comparativewill be carried out in subsequent stages of the EA. A comparative l i h h diff i l i bevaluation means that the differential impacts between two or more p

alternatives will be described and assessedalternatives will be described and assessed.

E l ti f Alt ti M th dEvaluation of Alternative Methods

� Th l ti f Alt ti M th d f i t th d� The evaluation of Alternative Methods of carrying out the proposed y g p pundertaking (alternative landfill footprints) will consider:undertaking (alternative landfill footprints) will consider:• The environment potentially affected; e e o e t pote t a y a ected;• The effects that will be caused on the environment;• The effects that will be caused on the environment; • The actions necessary to prevent change mitigate or remedy theThe actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the

ff t th i t deffects on the environment; and • An evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the• An evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the

environment.e o e t

� The comparative evaluation methodology will:p gy• Prepare a further description of each of the alternative landfill• Prepare a further description of each of the alternative landfill

footprints;footprints;D ib th i t t ti ll ff t d f h lt ti• Describe the environment potentially affected for each alternative p yin relation to the proposed evaluation criteria and indicators;in relation to the proposed evaluation criteria and indicators;

• Describe the net effects on the environment for each alternative relative to the other alternatives taking into account reasonablerelative to the other alternatives, taking into account reasonable mitigation methods (i e methods for which there is a reasonablemitigation methods (i.e. methods for which there is a reasonable

t ti th t th b i l t d b th t h i ll dexpectation that they can be implemented both technically and p y p yeconomically); andeconomically); and

• Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages to the environment g gfor each of the alternatives and prepare a rationale for thefor each of the alternatives, and prepare a rationale for the preferred alternative(s)preferred alternative(s).


E l ti C it i & I di tE l ti C it i & I di tEvaluation Criteria & IndicatorsEvaluation Criteria & IndicatorsEvaluation Criteria & Indicators f C iEvaluation Criteria & Indicators f C ifor Comparingfor Comparingfor Comparingfor ComparingAlternative MethodsAlternative MethodsAlternative MethodsAlternative Methods

P li i E l ti C it i d I di t tli d i th A d TOR dPreliminary Evaluation Criteria and Indicators were outlined in the Approved TOR and may be broadly grouped into Environmental Technical and Socio-Economicmay be broadly grouped into Environmental, Technical and Socio Economiccategories The Evaluation Criteria and Indicators were presented at both Opencategories. The Evaluation Criteria and Indicators were presented at both Open House #1 and Workshop #1, during which the public was given the opportunity toHouse #1 and Workshop #1, during which the public was given the opportunity to discuss and comment on them These criteria/indicators form the basis fordiscuss and comment on them. These criteria/indicators form the basis for characterizing existing environmental conditions, assessing potential adverse effectscharacterizing existing environmental conditions, assessing potential adverse effects of the Undertaking comparing Alternative Methods and help to identify a Preferredof the Undertaking, comparing Alternative Methods, and help to identify a Preferred Alternative Landfill Footprint. The criteria will be finalized following Workshop #2.p g p

Environmental�CriteriaAtmospheric Environment Air quality Noise OdourAtmospheric�Environment Air�quality,�Noise,�OdourGeology & Hydrogeology Groundwater qualityGeology�&�Hydrogeology Groundwater�qualitySurface Water Resources Surface water quality Surface water quantitySurface�Water�Resources Surface�water�quality,�Surface�water�quantityTerrestrial & Aquatic Terrestrial ecosystems, Aquatic ecosystemsTerrestrial�&�Aquatic�Environment

Terrestrial�ecosystems,�Aquatic�ecosystemsEnvironmentArchaeology�and�Cultural� Cultural�and�heritage�resourcesgyHeritage

gArchaeological resourcesHeritage Archaeological�resources

Transportation Effects�on�airport�operationsp p pEffects from truck transportation alongEffects�from�truck�transportation�along�access�roads

Land Use Effects on current and planned future landLand�Use Effects�on�current�and�planned�future�land�i l f i l l duses,�Displacement�of�Agricultural�Landp g

Technical CriteriaTechnical�Criteriai i d i d d l hSite�Design�and�Operation Site�design�and�operational�characteristicsg p g p

Socio�Economic CriteriaSocio Economic�Criteriai ff f iEconomic Effects�on�cost�of�service�to�

customers/neighbourscustomers/neighboursContinued�service�to�customersEffects on/benefits to local communityEffects�on/benefits�to�local�community

Social Visual�impact�of�facility,�Local�residents,�Soc a sua pac o ac y, oca es de s,Recreational facilitiesRecreational�facilities

Aboriginal� Potential�effects�on�Aboriginal�communitiesg g

A full description of the Criteria Indicators Rationale for their selection and DataA full description of the Criteria, Indicators, Rationale for their selection and Data Sources are available for comment at this Public Open House.Sou ces a e a a ab e o co e t at t s ub c Ope ouse


� The proposed work plans (Appendix C of the approved TOR)� The proposed work plans (Appendix C of the approved TOR), present the scope of work required to complete the EA includingpresent the scope of work required to complete the EA, including the scope of technical studies for each of the environmentalthe scope of technical studies for each of the environmental components public consultation effects assessment mitigationcomponents, public consultation, effects assessment, mitigation, EA documentation and submission The work plans also presentEA documentation and submission. The work plans also present proposed schedules for the technical studies.proposed schedules for the technical studies.

� The following tasks are outlined in the draft work plans:� The following tasks are outlined in the draft work plans:� Task 1 – Identify Alternative Methods for New Landfill Footprint� Task 1 Identify Alternative Methods for New Landfill Footprint

bj t f W k h #1– subject of Workshop #1j p� T k 2 D ib th E i t P t ti ll Aff t d� Task 2 – Describe the Environment Potentially Affectedy� T k 3 Id tif Miti ti M t b I t d i th� Task 3 – Identify Mitigation Measures to be Incorporated in the y g p

Design of each AlternativeDesign of each Alternative� Task 4 Predict Environmental Effects for each Alternative� Task 4 – Predict Environmental Effects for each Alternative� Task 5 Refine Mitigation Measures and Determine Net Effects� Task 5 – Refine Mitigation Measures and Determine Net Effects� Task 6 Comparatively Evaluate Alternatives� Task 6 – Comparatively Evaluate Alternatives� Task 7 Identify Preferred Alternative and Detailed Assessment� Task 7 – Identify Preferred Alternative and Detailed Assessment� Task 8 Conduct Cumulative Effects Assessment� Task 8 – Conduct Cumulative Effects Assessment� Task 9-12 EA Documentation� Task 9-12 – EA Documentation

� Consultation (Tasks 13 24 of the work plan) with the public� Consultation (Tasks 13-24 of the work plan) with the public, agencies and other stakeholders will be ongoing throughout the EAagencies and other stakeholders will be ongoing throughout the EA process.p

� W d t ki T k 2 h i id tifi d t lt ti� We are now undertaking Task 2, having identified two alternative g , glandfill footprints during the Task 1 phase as well as two additionallandfill footprints during the Task 1 phase, as well as two additional footprint options through public consultation to datefootprint options through public consultation to date.

� Work plans for the individual technical disciplines are available for� Work plans for the individual technical disciplines are available for i t thi P bli O Hreview at this Public Open House.p


Baseline ConditionsBaseline ConditionsBaseline ConditionsBaseline ConditionsBaseline ConditionsBaseline Conditions� A preliminary description of the existing environment at the WCEC� A preliminary description of the existing environment at the WCEC

was described in the approved TOR.was described in the approved TOR.

� The EA will address the following components of the environment that� The EA will address the following components of the environment that b ff d b h l i h d f i hmay be affected by the alternative methods of carrying out the y y y g

undertaking:undertaking:� Atmosphere (Air Quality Noise Odour);� Atmosphere (Air Quality, Noise, Odour);� Geology and Hydrogeology;� Geology and Hydrogeology;� S f W t� Surface Water;;� Natural Environment (Terrestrial and Aquatic);� Natural Environment (Terrestrial and Aquatic);� Archaeological/Cultural Heritage Resources;� Archaeological/Cultural Heritage Resources;� Transportation;� Transportation;� L d U� Land Use;;� Agriculture;� Agriculture;� Socio economic;� Socio-economic;� Current Site Operations; and� Current Site Operations; and,� Aboriginal.g

� Data for the EA will be collected and analyzed for three study areas:� Data for the EA will be collected and analyzed for three study areas:� On-site – the lands owned and/or optioned by WMCC for the� On site the lands owned and/or optioned by WMCC for the

d l dfill f t i tproposed new landfill footprint;p p p� Site Vicinit the lands in the icinit of the c rrent Otta a WMF� Site Vicinity – the lands in the vicinity of the current Ottawa WMF

(within 500 m of the alternative WCEC landfill footprints);(within 500 m of the alternative WCEC landfill footprints);� Regional – the lands within approximately 1-5 km of the Site� Regional the lands within approximately 1 5 km of the Site,

d di th di i li d l t f tdepending on the discipline and relevant factors.p g p

� The project team has conducted desktop studies and will carry out� The project team has conducted desktop studies and will carry out field in estigations to f rther describe the en ironmental componentsfield investigations to further describe the environmental components listed above that may be affected by the Undertaking This will belisted above that may be affected by the Undertaking. This will be d f h f th lt ti f t i t id tifi ddone for each of the alternative footprints identified.p

� Please see corresponding “Existing Conditions” pods for further� Please see corresponding Existing Conditions pods for further i f ti th b li diti f h f th i t linformation on the baseline conditions for each of the environmental components identifiedcomponents identified.


Closure of theClosure of theClosure of theClosure of theClosure of the Closure of the C rrent LandfillC rrent LandfillCurrent LandfillCurrent LandfillCurrent LandfillCurrent Landfill

Th t l dfill ill b l d i th t tThe current landfill will be closed in a manner that meets specifications of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE)specifications of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) p y ( )

A t f th l l i t d tAs a part of the closure plan we intend to:p p� Continue on-going monitoring programs for:� Continue on going monitoring programs for:

G d t• Groundwater;;• Surface water; and• Surface water; and, • Landfill gas• Landfill gas.

�Submit an annual report to the MOE for the closed landfill�Submit an annual report to the MOE for the closed landfill, including:including:• Development;Development;

O ti d• Operation; and,Operation; and,M it i• Monitoring.g

� P id fi i l d ti d t ti� Provide financial assurance and supporting documentation pp gto the MOEto the MOE.

The approved Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) willThe approved Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) will continue to be followed after closure of the existing landfillcontinue to be followed after closure of the existing landfill f t i tfootprint.p

Activities currently underway at the existing landfill include:Activities currently underway at the existing landfill include:� Installation of final phase of “beanie cap”� Installation of final phase of beanie cap� Filling of landfill side slopes to contours� Filling of landfill side slopes to contours� A li ti f S ti l B t h R t (SBR) f� Application for Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) for pre-pp q ( ) p

treatment of leachatetreatment of leachate� Additional preparations for landfill closure� Additional preparations for landfill closure


E isting ConditionsE isting ConditionsExisting ConditionsExisting ConditionsExisting ConditionsExisting Conditionsgg

A h i E i Ai Q liAtmospheric Environment- Air QualityAtmospheric Environment- Air Quality� The baseline assessment for Air Quality� The baseline assessment for Air Quality

from the existing landfill will incorporate o t e e st g a d co po atethe 7 years of measured data from thethe 7 years of measured data from the EXISTING�LANDFILL�SOURCES�

area into the AERMOD numerical Combustion�Gases,�VOC's�and�

dispersion model Sulfur�Compoundsdispersion model.� Th R d d U b B k d� The Roadway and Urban Background y g

sources will be evaluated throughsources will be evaluated through t d tmeasurement data.

� The most important component� The most important component f th i lit t di URBAN BACKGROUNDof the air quality studies are URBAN�BACKGROUND�

SOURCESROADWAY�SOURCES

the Volatile Organic CompoundSOURCES

C b tiExhaustthe Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) i t i th

Combustion�Gases VOCs Particulate

Exhaust�Gases,�VOC's,�Particulate(VOC) impacts since these Gases,�VOCs,�Particulate

are the critical componentsare the critical components of landfill emissionsof landfill emissions.

Atmospheric Environment DustAtmospheric Environment- Dustp� The baseline assessment for� The baseline assessment for

atmospheric dust will be based on the ph d d f t th t hhundreds of measurements that have been taken over the past 7 yearsbeen taken over the past 7 years.

� The baseline assessment will include� The baseline assessment will include i t f th i ti l dfillAggregate�Roadway some impact from the existing landfill gg g

OperationsRoadway�

D t even though the existing landfill will noOperationsDust even though the existing landfill will no longer be contributing in any significantlonger be contributing in any significant

ti iti h t dway once activities have stopped.y pp� The use of ambient measurements isGeneral � The use of ambient measurements is General�

Atmospheric the best way to incorporate dustAtmospheric� the best way to incorporate dust i t f ll th hBackground impacts from all the sources showng p

� Measured data shows that the dust� Measured data shows that the dust environment is fairly typical of Easternenvironment is fairly typical of Eastern OOntario.



At h i E i t OdAtmospheric Environment- OdourAtmospheric Environment OdourWorking Drop OffWorking�Face

Drop�Off�BinsFace� Bins

(No�Longer� (No�Longer�( gin�Use)

( gin Use)) in�Use)

hLandfill�Gas�Landfill�Gas�

Landfill Leachate�Landfill CollectionCollection Landfill�Od Collection�Landfill�

GCollection�

dCollection�

d Odours SystemGas and�and� SystemDestruction*Destruction*

*WM has spent tens of millions of dollars to upgrade the gas collection and destruction system*WM�has�spent�tens�of�millions�of�dollars�to�upgrade�the�gas�collection�and�destruction�system

� The baseline odour assessment for the new landfill will include an� The baseline odour assessment for the new landfill will include an evaluation of the existing landfill after closure.g

� The odour sources (shown above) will be evaluated using a numerical� The odour sources (shown above) will be evaluated using a numerical t h i di i d l th t ill i t 5 f h latmospheric dispersion model that will incorporate 5 years of hourly p p p y y

meteorological data and thousands of modelled receptor pointsmeteorological data and thousands of modelled receptor points.

At h i E i t N iAtmospheric Environment- NoiseAtmospheric Environment Noise

� The baseline assessment for noise will� The baseline assessment for noise will i t d d t bli h dincorporate measured data, published p pdata and traffic data from the area into Roadway Noisedata and traffic data from the area into Roadway�Noisethe CADNA and ORACLE noise modelsthe CADNA and ORACLE noise models.

�� The model will evaluate noise sources (gas collection landfill gas to energy(gas collection, landfill gas to energy plant) from the existing site that will

Noiseplant) from the existing site that will

Noise�Sourcesremain after the site is closed. Sources�

fromAggregate�� The predominant sources of noise in the from�

E isting

gg gOperations� The predominant sources of noise in the

Existing�Sit

Operationsarea are the roadways around the site Sitearea are the roadways around the site.



At h i E i tAtmospheric EnvironmentAtmospheric EnvironmentOdour ComplaintsOdour�Complaints

d 4500 4071ved

40004071

eiv

4000

ece

3500Re 3500

s�R

3000nt

2500ai 2500

mpl

2000om

15002000

Co 1500 1222of�C

10001222

r�o

10001 461be

r

500 1 461

mb

0 168um 0Nu

2005 662005 200666

2006 2007 20082008 20092009 2010Year

� Odour complaints received directly and/or forwarded to Waste p yManagement by other parties are documented and addressed inManagement by other parties are documented and addressed in accordance with the comprehensive site-wide Certificate of Approvalaccordance with the comprehensive site wide Certificate of Approval (Ai ) N 7816 7C9JMR(Air) No. 7816-7C9JMR.( )

� In this regard a quarterly report is submitted to the Ontario Ministry of� In this regard, a quarterly report is submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Environment as per Condition 7 of the Certificate of ApprovalEnvironment as per Condition 7 of the Certificate of Approval

i i th d l i t d th iti ti ti t ksummarizing the odour complaints and the mitigation actions taken.g p g

� A total of 66 odo r complaints ere recei ed d ring 2010� A total of 66 odour complaints were received during 2010.

� WM staff analyzed each complaint to establish the source of the odour� WM staff analyzed each complaint to establish the source of the odour and to remedy the situation if warrantedand to remedy the situation if warranted.



G l & H d lGeology & HydrogeologyGeology & HydrogeologyTopography & Drainage:Topography & Drainage:� Topography in the area surrounding the Study Area ranges from sandy� Topography in the area surrounding the Study Area ranges from sandy

upland areas in the northwest and west to poorly drained swampy areasupland areas in the northwest and west to poorly-drained swampy areas and the Carp River floodplain toward the northeast. The primary naturaland the Carp River floodplain toward the northeast. The primary natural topographic feature in the area is a northwest southeast trending sand andtopographic feature in the area is a northwest-southeast trending sand and gravel ridge, historically used for sand & gravel extraction.gravel ridge, historically used for sand & gravel extraction.

� Surface drainage around the Study Area is controlled by the ground surface Su ace d a age a ou d t e Study ea s co t o ed by t e g ou d su acetopography and small Carp River tributaries as modified by the surroundingtopography and small Carp River tributaries, as modified by the surrounding quarry operations and the Highway 417 drainage system. North and west of q y p g y g ythe existing site surface drainage flows within the Huntley Creekthe existing site, surface drainage flows within the Huntley Creek

h d d di h i H l C k h C Ri Al hwatershed, and discharges via Huntley Creek to the Carp River. Along the , g y p gwestern boundary of the West Envelope there is a Provincially Significantwestern boundary of the West Envelope, there is a Provincially Significant W tl d (PSW) hi h h d t f l l k dWetland (PSW) which serves as a headwater for local creeks and ( )agricultural drainsagricultural drains.

Surficial & Bedrock Geology:Surficial & Bedrock Geology:� Th fi i l l b d i th St d A i i it i i t f� The surficial geology observed in the Study Area vicinity is a mixture of g gy y y

poorly to well-sorted stratified gravels and sands interbedded with lensespoorly to well-sorted, stratified gravels and sands, interbedded with lenses f ilt d l till D it h i t ll b dd d ft di l iof silty sand-gravel till. Deposits are horizontally bedded, often displaying y g p y p y g

evidence of cross-bedding Near the eastern side of the Northevidence of cross bedding. Near the eastern side of the North E l d d l d i t th fi i l d it th dEnvelope, sand and gravel predominate the surficial deposits; these grade into sand and till deposits to the west Along the Highway 417 boundary ofinto sand and till deposits to the west. Along the Highway 417 boundary of the West Envelope shallow organic and till deposits overlie the limestonethe West Envelope, shallow organic and till deposits overlie the limestone bedrock.bedrock.

� Bedrock in the Study Area consists of grey, fine to medium-grained� Bedrock in the Study Area consists of grey, fine to medium grainedfossiliferous limestone with some shaly or sandy interbeds The bedrockfossiliferous limestone with some shaly or sandy interbeds. The bedrock surface generally slopes in a north-northeasterly direction under the study su ace ge e a y s opes a o t o t easte y d ect o u de t e studyarea The bedrock is classified as the Bobcaygeon Formation a member ofarea. The bedrock is classified as the Bobcaygeon Formation, a member of the Middle Ordovician-aged Ottawa Group.g p

� Along the western side of the West Envelope, the Bobcaygeon Formation is g p , ygin contact with the underlying (older) Gull River Formation another memberin contact with the underlying (older) Gull River Formation, another member

f th Ott G Th t t b t th b d k f ti iof the Ottawa Group. The contact between these bedrock formations is palong a faulted zone The bedrock formations in the area are transected byalong a faulted zone. The bedrock formations in the area are transected by th t l di i l f lt F t d it t i ll i ithese steeply dipping normal faults. Fracture density typically increases in p y pp g y yp yclose proximity to the fault zoneclose proximity to the fault zone.



G l & H d lGeology & HydrogeologyGeology & HydrogeologyPhysical Hydrogeology:Physical Hydrogeology:� Two groundwater units underlay the Study Area : i) unconsolidated sands o g ou d ate u ts u de ay t e Study ea ) u co so dated sa ds

and gravels and the hydraulically connected weathered upper bedrockand gravels, and the hydraulically connected weathered upper bedrock surface (overburden-shallow bedrock zone); and ii) deeper bedrock ( ); ) pfractures (deeper bedrock zone)fractures (deeper bedrock zone).

� Shallow groundwater flow generally follows the bedrock topography with a� Shallow groundwater flow generally follows the bedrock topography, with a t t bl l ti f hl 128 ASL i th th t ti f thwater table elevation from roughly 128 mASL in the southwest portion of the g y p

Study Area to less than 112 mASL east of Carp Road Groundwater withinStudy Area to less than 112 mASL east of Carp Road. Groundwater within th b d h ll b d k ( th t ti f th it ) flthe overburden-shallow bedrock (southwest portion of the site) flows ( p )northward Groundwater in the overburden-shallow bedrock across thenorthward. Groundwater in the overburden shallow bedrock across the

i d f th St d A fl th t R i l d t fl iremainder of the Study Area flows northeast. Regional groundwater flow in the deeper bedrock is northeast toward Carp Riverthe deeper bedrock is northeast, toward Carp River.

Groundwater Quality:Groundwater Quality:� Natural shallow groundwater quality in the Study Area is potable has� Natural shallow groundwater quality in the Study Area is potable, has

relatively low dissolved solids content, and is composed of a higherrelatively low dissolved solids content, and is composed of a higher proportion of calcium magnesium and bicarbonate ions relative to otherproportion of calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate ions relative to other major ions, typical of shallow groundwater from limestone environments.j , yp g

� Groundwater quality in the overburden-shallow bedrock in the northern q yportion of the North Envelope is generally consistent with backgroundportion of the North Envelope is generally consistent with background

i hil d i i l d f hconcentrations, while groundwater monitoring completed as part of the , g g p pregular environmental monitoring program for the operating landfill site hasregular environmental monitoring program for the operating landfill site has h hi h t ti f l h t i di t t l ti tshown higher concentrations of leachate indicator parameters relative to g p

background conditions along the southern boundary Elevatedbackground conditions along the southern boundary. Elevated t ti f di l d t l d di t f thconcentrations of dissolved parameters are also seen downgradient of the

stormwater management pond in a former area of biosolids storagestormwater management pond, in a former area of biosolids storage.� Observed shallow groundwater concentrations on the West Envelope are� Observed shallow groundwater concentrations on the West Envelope are

generally within the range of expected background concentrations withgenerally within the range of expected background concentrations, with slightly higher concentrations of alkalinity and potassium in the northeast.slightly higher concentrations of alkalinity and potassium in the northeast.

� Groundwater in monitoring wells installed in the overburden-shallow� Groundwater in monitoring wells installed in the overburden shallowbedrock zone on the downgradient side of the existing landfill generally hasbedrock zone on the downgradient side of the existing landfill generally has higher concentrations of leachate indicator parameters relative to g e co ce t at o s o eac ate d cato pa a ete s e at e tobackground conditions due to leachate from the unlined portions of thebackground conditions, due to leachate from the unlined portions of the waste disposal areas.p



G l & H d lGeology & HydrogeologyGeology & HydrogeologyRemedial Efforts:Remedial Efforts:� A purge well remediation system has been installed to capture the natural� A purge well remediation system has been installed to capture the natural

groundwater flow before it leaves the landfill site It does this by drawing thegroundwater flow before it leaves the landfill site. It does this by drawing the water level down between pumping wells, effectively creating a hydraulicwater level down between pumping wells, effectively creating a hydraulic barrier along the downgradient boundary of the landfill The groundwater isbarrier along the downgradient boundary of the landfill. The groundwater is pumped off-site and treated at the City of Ottawa’s sewage treatment plant.pumped off site and treated at the City of Ottawa s sewage treatment plant.

� The remedial action has also included the purchase of properties east of e e ed a act o as a so c uded t e pu c ase o p ope t es east oCarp Road and the registration of these properties as ContaminantCarp Road, and the registration of these properties as Contaminant Attenuation Zones (CAZs). This is done through application to the Ontario ( ) g ppMinistry of Environment (MOE) To date one property has been registeredMinistry of Environment (MOE). To date, one property has been registered

CAZ l f h MOE f f ddi i l l f l d bas a CAZ; approval from the MOE for four additional parcels of land to be ; pp pregistered is pendingregistered is pending.

� The Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) includes� The Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) includes d t f t l h t d it i tgroundwater, surface water, leachate and gas monitoring components. g g g p

Groundwater monitoring over the past several years has demonstrated thatGroundwater monitoring over the past several years has demonstrated that th ll t i bl t ff ti l t l d t fl t ththe purge well system is able to effectively control groundwater flow at the landfill boundary and the residual concentrations on the downgradientlandfill boundary, and the residual concentrations on the downgradient properties east of Carp Road are decreasing gradually under naturalproperties east of Carp Road are decreasing gradually under natural conditions.conditions.

Ongoing Studies:Ongoing Studies:� Additi l b h l b i d ill d d it i ll i t ll d th� Additional boreholes are being drilled and monitoring wells installed on the

West Envelope to gather information from areas where data gaps haveWest Envelope to gather information from areas where data gaps have been identified This work will be completed in the early Spring 2011been identified. This work will be completed in the early Spring 2011.

� Water levels will be measured in the monitoring wells on the West Envelope� Water levels will be measured in the monitoring wells on the West Envelope and in the Provincially Significant Wetland to evaluate the flow regime andand in the Provincially Significant Wetland to evaluate the flow regime and to better understand the groundwater surface water interaction in the areato better understand the groundwater-surface water interaction in the area.

� Another round of groundwater sampling will be conducted in Spring 2011 to� Another round of groundwater sampling will be conducted in Spring 2011 to update the chemistry data for the site.p y


G l d H d lG l d H d lGeology and HydrogeologyGeology and HydrogeologyGeology and HydrogeologyGeology and HydrogeologyGeology and HydrogeologyGeology and Hydrogeologygy y g gygy y g gy

G l d H d lG l d H d lGeology and HydrogeologyGeology and HydrogeologyGeology and HydrogeologyGeology and HydrogeologyGeology and HydrogeologyGeology and Hydrogeologygy y g gygy y g gy

CAZ B dCAZ B dCAZ BoundaryCAZ BoundaryCAZ BoundaryCAZ BoundaryCAZ BoundaryCAZ Boundaryyy


Surface Water ResourcesSurface Water Resources� Th i ti Ott WMF i l t d ithi th C Ri� The existing Ottawa WMF is located within the Carp River

Watershed/Subwatershed which discharges to the Ottawa River at FitzroyWatershed/Subwatershed, which discharges to the Ottawa River at Fitzroy HarbourHarbour.

� Surface water management for the approved landfill area is provided� Surface water management for the approved landfill area is provided through a network of open channels (i.e., ditches, swales) andthrough a network of open channels (i.e., ditches, swales) and culverts which direct runoff to one of the on site stormwater managementculverts, which direct runoff to one of the on-site stormwater management (SWM) ponds.( ) p

� The primary purpose of the existing SWM ponds is to contain runoff p y p p g pgenerated by the landfill area provide an opportunity for groundwatergenerated by the landfill area, provide an opportunity for groundwater

h d t th ttl t f d d lidrecharge, and promote the settlement of suspended solids.g , p p

� S f t ll t d b th SWM d th t d t t� Surface water collected by the SWM ponds that does not evaporate or y p pinfiltrate into the overburden groundwater system is used for on-siteinfiltrate into the overburden groundwater system is used for on site

ti i l di i i ti d d t t i toperations, including irrigation and dust suppressant requirements.

� Infiltrated surface runoff from the SWM ponds is captured by the existing� Infiltrated surface runoff from the SWM ponds is captured by the existing purge wells along the west side of Carp Road and the north side of Highwaypurge wells along the west side of Carp Road and the north side of Highway 417 which discharge to the municipal sanitary sewer along Carp Road in417, which discharge to the municipal sanitary sewer along Carp Road, in accordance with a discharge agreement with the City of Ottawa under itsaccordance with a discharge agreement with the City of Ottawa under its Sewer Use By LawSewer Use By-Law.

� Surface runoff from a small portion of the southwest corner of the non� Surface runoff from a small portion of the southwest corner of the non-landfill site area is conveyed west towards William Mooney Road, which y y ,ultimately flows into South Huntley Creekultimately flows into South Huntley Creek.

� Surface water quality monitoring is conducted at multiple locations within the� Surface water quality monitoring is conducted at multiple locations within the d di t t ( f t S f W t fi ) t th tdown-gradient watercourse (refer to Surface Water figure) to ensure that g ( g )the flows are not impacted as a result of landfill operationsthe flows are not impacted as a result of landfill operations.


Date post:	28-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times