M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E

To / Destinataire	Chair and Members of the Planning and Environment Committee / Président et les membres du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement	File/N° de fichier: ACS2004-TUP-UTL-0015-IPD
From / Expéditeur	Deputy City Manager / Directrice municipale adjointe, Public Works and Services / Services et travaux publics	Contact / Personne-ressource: K. Brothers, Director, Utility Services / Directeur, Direction des services publics 580-2424, ext. 22609 Ken.Brothers@ottawa.ca
Subject / Objet	TRAIL WASTE FACILITY LANDFILL OPTIMIZATION / RAPPORT SUR L’OPTIMISATION DE LA DÉCHARGE CONTRÔLÉE DU CHEMIN TRAIL	Date: 26 October 2004 / le 26 octobre 2004

1. Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the background and update members of council on the status of the Trail Landfill Optimization/Expansion Project by outlining what has been done to date, when it was done, the costs incurred; and also the current status of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) approval.

The Trail Landfill Asset Management and Optimization Study (1998) was one of the steps recommended in the City’s (formerly the Region’s) Waste Management Master Plan – Interim Review, approved by Council in April 1990. The Plan outlined three major studies to be completed as part of the re-initiation of the Waste Management Planning Exercise. The three studies were:

· Waste Composition Study, December 1992 – provided a comprehensive audit of residential, industrial, commercial and institutional waste in the City.

· 3Rs Study, February 1995 – provided the basis for evaluating and implementing future actions in 3Rs. The study was used to pilot and implement waste diversion options identified in the study.

· Trail Landfill Asset Management and Optimization Study, October 1998 – determined the remaining site life of the landfill and assessed the feasibility of extending the life by going higher, increasing the landfill footprint and/or by landfill mining. The report concluded that the most cost-effective, mid to long-term waste disposal solution available to the City would be to optimize the existing landfill resource.

Consultation was subsequently carried out on the Optimization Study and in September 1999 Council approved a report that confirmed the direction of the Optimization Study and accordingly, the City proceeded with an Environmental Assessment (EA) process for a landfill expansion.

2.1 Trail Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment

The purpose of the EA is to provide long-term environmentally safe solid waste capacity through optimization and expansion of the existing Trail Waste Facility landfill. This would occur by increasing height on all four existing stages of the landfill and the addition of a new landfill area to the northwest, within the existing footprint. The process followed will satisfy the EA Act, the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA).

Depending on the City’s choices for waste diversion the additional site life will range from 10 years, at the City’s 2003 diversion rate of 31% from blue and black box recycling and leaf and yard waste, to 40 years with the implementation of new programs such as city-wide organics collection which would bring Ottawa up to the provincial diversion target of 60 percent by 2008. At present Council has endorsed a goal of 40% diversion for the current contract term using tools such as reduced bag limits, and public education on the need for diversion and increased awareness of future diversion targets. Securing additional landfill capacity through the EA process must be coupled with aggressive waste diversion initiatives identified in the Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP) to ensure that the City can meet the challenges of providing long-term efficient integrated solid waste services for its residents while meeting provincially mandated waste diversion targets.

Since 1984, the City has attempted to fulfill the requirements of the provincial EA/EPA approval process three times at a combined total cost of approximately $5M including the current EA process formally initiated in February 2000 as a “scoped” EA. In January 2001, the province approved the City’s scoped EA Terms of Reference (ToR) which identified three alternatives for Trail Waste facility to be considered to provide the City with waste disposal space beyond 2008: increased height, increased area and undertaking landfill reclamation through mining. The intent of the scoped process was to streamline the previously more cumbersome and time-consuming process followed, where initial alternatives to existing landfill are explored in detail, e.g. site a new landfill.

The most recent EA process was initiated in February 2000. At that time, the remaining site life of the Trail Landfill was estimated to be 8 or 9 years (ie. closure in 2008 or 2009). The EA was to determine the preferred method of expanding the landfill to extend its operating life to serve the City’s long-term solid waste disposal needs. The landfill expansion required an Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) approval.

On January 1, 1997, the EAA was amended to enable proponents to prepare and receive approval for an EA Terms of Reference (ToR) early in the overall EA process. Therefore, the first step undertaken by the City in preparing an EA was the development of an EA ToR. The EA ToR defined the scope of the EA study for expanding the landfill site. It was prepared under subsection 6(2)(c) of the EAA, which provides for a “focused” EA. After consulting with the public and government agencies, the City submitted the EA ToR to the Ministry of the Environment in October 2000. The Minister approved the EA ToR in January 2001.

The Trail Landfill EA was then undertaken with completion of a Draft EA in October 2001 and a Final EA in March 2002. An extensive public and agency consultation program was carried out as part of the EA preparation. The Final EA was not submitted to the MOE until May 2002 because of a provincial labour disruption.

The Trail Landfill Optimization/Expansion and related EA work had been before Committee and Council a number of times in 2001/2002:

· On April 11, 2001, Council approved a report entitled Environmental Assessment Consultation Plan and Approval Schedule for the Trail Waste Facility Landfill, which set out the proposed Council approval schedule for the project.

· On October 10, 2001, Council approved the report entitled Trail Waste Facility Landfill Optimization/Expansion – Preferred Alternative, which set out the preferred landfill expansion alternative.

· A memorandum, dated November 15, 2001, received by Council members as part of the regular project updates, advised that the Draft Environmental Assessment/Environmental Protection Act Report had been completed and was to be circulated for public and agency review.

· On April 10, 2002, Council approved a report entitled Trail Waste Facility Landfill Optimization/Expansion – Environmental Assessment and Environmental Protection Act, which sought Council approval to submit the Final EA/EPA Report to the Ministry of the Environment for approval of the expansion of the Trail Landfill.

Following submission of the EA/EPA Report to the Ministry on May 31^st 2002, there was a seven week public and agency comment period. The Ministry received comments from review agencies, but did not receive any public comments. The Ministry’s Review of the Environmental Assessment was issued on September 13, 2002. It concluded as follows:

“This Review concludes that the City has undertaken a thorough and complete EA process for the Trail Waste Facility Landfill. The EA document provides sufficient information for the Minister to make a decision about the application. The MOE concludes that the requirements of the EAA, as they exist under subsection 6.1(2), have been met.”

In terms of public and agency comments, the Review went on to say:

“The public and relevant government agencies have reviewed the EA and submitted comments to the MOE for consideration in preparing this Review. Issues by responding government agencies have been addressed or can be addressed through conditions of approval, as applicable, if the undertaking is approved. The public has been involved in the preparation of the environmental assessment, but submitted no comments after the EA was formally submitted to MOE on May 31, 2002.”

Following release of the Ministry Review there was a five week final public review period; no comments were received. The City made a submission to the MOE with some suggested changes to the proposed conditions of EA approval included in their review.

A recommendation package was signed off by MOE staff in December 2002 and sent to the Minister for review and a decision.

The Ministry regulated timelines set five weeks for a Minister decision once the staff recommendation package is received. Therefore, a decision was expected in February/March 2003. Unfortunately, this timeline was not met by the Province due to the change in government and the legal challenge referred to as “ Sutcliffe vs. Ontario “ before the Ontario Divisional Court regarding Waste Management’s Richmond Landfill (near Napanee, Ontario) scoped EA expansion.

2.2 Richmond Landfill Court Decision

In June 2003, an Ontario Divisional Court decision on the Richmond Landfill expansion quashed the decision of the Minister of the Environment approving the “focused” EA ToR. The position of the Ministry following the Court decision was that the Minister did not have the authority to approve a “focused” EA ToR, nor an EA that is based on an approved, focused EA ToR (the City’s Trail Landfill Expansion EA falls into the second category).

The City subsequently wrote a letter to the MOE Director, EA and Approvals Branch, on August 21, 2003 requesting an update on the status of the Trail Landfill EA approval, and met with the Director and other senior Ministry staff on September 22, 2003. At that time the Ministry was seeking leave to appeal the Court decision. Since the new provincial government took office, the Ministry has dropped their request for leave to appeal.

In June 2003, the Ontario Divisional Court upheld the Sutcliffe position, which put Ottawa’s scoped EA on further hold pending appeal. The City of Ottawa staff wrote to the MOE in August 2003 and met with MOE staff in September 2003 to express concerns regarding the status of the Trail Waste Facility EA and to seek resolution to Ottawa’s situation. At that time, the City was told the MOE was not in the position to approve the Trail Waste Facility Landfill scoped EA and asked the City to wait for results of the MOE\Waste Management appeal process.

Early in January 2004, the MOE dropped their appeal leaving Waste Management to continue with the appeal process and on January 30, 2004, the City sent another letter to the MOE again seeking resolution to the City’s EA. In February 2004, the MOE responded stating that since the scoped EA ToR did not meet the minimum requirements of the EAA as interpreted by the Ontario Divisional Court, the EA could not be approved. However, on August 25, 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the Ontario Divisional Court decision thereby allowing the Waste Management’s Richmond Landfill expansion to proceed with the original scoped EA ToR. Following this decision, on August 30, 2004 the City sent a letter to the Environment Minister, under the Mayor’s signature, requesting approval for the Trail Waste Facility Landfill EA given the recent Court of Appeal decision, and at present the City awaits response from the MOE.

CONCLUSION

The Department will continue to work aggressively towards a resolution to the EA situation with the MOE and will update Council accordingly. Pursuing an approval of the current EA will avoid spending taxpayers dollars after having spent over $2 million to successfully complete an EA that went through the entire EA process in 2000-2002 with no outstanding public or agency concerns. Further City/Province discussions are warranted.

Original Signed by:

R.T. Leclair

RTL/ TJ/

cc: Ken Brothers, Director, Utility Services
c.c. Anne-Marie Fowler, Manager, Solid Waste Services
c.c. Patricia Johnson, Program Manager, Waste Diversion & Processing
c.c. Tim Marc, Legal Services

c.c. Coordinator, Planning and Environment Committee