Presentation to the

1

• Presentation to the
• Planning and Environment Committee
• RE Trail Road Landfill Leachate
• and Nepean Landfill
• Contaminated Groundwater
• Presented by the Public Liaison Committee
• November 23, 2004
• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  _______________________
• (Speaking Notes in yellow)
• Good Morning Chair Hume and Councillors.
• My name is Mary Elin Moore. I am a member of the
  Public Liaison Committee and on behalf of the PLC
  I am making this presentation to you.
• The Public Liaison Committee was established by
  the City under this EA process to ensure that the
  public is properly informed and that their views
  are properly reflected and taken into account in
  the EA.

2
Overview

• History of Trail Road, Nepean Landfill and
  Leachate treatment
• The PLC reminds this committee of the
  extremely long history of this issue for City
  officials and Councillors, as well as for the
  public and stakeholders in South Nepean.
• Facts on Leachate and Treatment Options
• The Pipeline and what it will mean to our
  community
• Why choose on-site treatment?
• Reasons why on-site treatment is the only
  viable solution.
• Results of Public Consultation and the views of
  other Stakeholders
• Concluding remarks

2
3
Chronology

• 1995 - Trail Road Environmental Assessment
  completed and approved by Regional Council
• 1998/1999 - Proposed pipeline route through
  Barrhaven following the CN tracks
• 2000 - Regional Council approves pipeline route
• January 2003 - City proceeds with notification
  of design and construction of pipeline
• It is also important to note that over the
  past decade, the City has always proposed
  pipeline as the preferred method and has changed
  the proposed pipeline route SEVERAL TIMES From
  Barrhaven, to Cambrian West, to Golflinks and
  most recently to Jockvale in March 2003.

3
4
Chronology (contd)

• March 2003 Council directs staff to work with
  Monarch Homes to modify the alignment of the
  pipeline
• July 2003 Council gives direction to staff to
  re-open the EA after significant concern
  expressed by the Stonebridge community
• November 2003 Consultants and PLC begin work
• May 2004 VOCs added to the EA

4
5
Quick Facts Did you know?

• The City spends 500,000 annually to transport 10
  tanker trucks of leachate each working day to
  ROPEC
• due to this environmental issue not being
  permanently addressed
• EAs,studies, and public consultations between
  1994 2004 on the issue have cost taxpayers
  approximately 2.6 million
• The City has spent 9 million buying up close to
  400 acres of contaminated land around the Trail
  Road Landfill facility

5
6
Quick Facts Did you know?

• Stonebridge currently has 950 homes, to be built
  out to 2600 homes by 2015
• In the next 15 to 20 years 40,000 new residential
  dwellings will be built that would be affected by
  the Jockvale pipeline route.
• It is imperative that we come up with a solution
  that also takes future residents into account.

6
7
Implications of Pipeline

• Pipelines have an inherent risk of failure
• Digging and construction are major factors in the
  disruption of electricity, water mains and sewer
  mains. Slow leaks are virtually undetectable for
  long periods of time and can only be reacted to
  (it is nearly impossible to be proactive with
  respect to a pipeline).
• Pipelines do rupture. Proof of this, you will
  see on Slide 8 which shows the Richmond
  Forcemain pipe that burst On October 26, 2004,
  the day of the Trail Road Open House, held by the
  city ---to promote its choice of a leachate
  forcemain as a safe alternative.
• Property valuation
• The pipeline would also have a negative impact on
  our property values 
• The costs to nearby landowners, farms, residents
  and business have not been included in the
  assessment of a pipeline. This can only adversely
  affect the values. The City has never adequately
  demonstrated to the citizens of Stonebridge that
  a pipeline will not reduce their property values.
• The definition of environment (according to the
  Municipal Class EA) includes the social,
  economic and cultural conditions that influence
  the life of humans or a community. FURTHERMORE,
  the Municipal Class EA Assessment guidance
  document (June 2000) states Typical factors to
  consider in conducting studies should include
  change in property value as a recognized
  potential factor.
  
  

7
8
Implications of Pipeline
As well

• Transportation of Leachate and Contaminated
  Groundwater by a pipeline route of more than 40Km
  will indeed greatly increase the level of health
  and safety risks as well as expand the geographic
  area at risk. What will happen to residents if
  their wells become contaminated due to gradual or
  sudden pipeline failures?
•  
• Any time something is transported to another
  area, the risk of something going wrong
  increases. The risk is eliminated entirely with
  on-site treatment. The area is contained and the
  proposed on-site option would include holding
  cells to account for unforeseen natural
  occurrences such as the 100 year rainfall of
  Sept 9, 2004.
• There are also environmental and regulatory
  issues.  For example, there will still be a need
  for pre-treatment in order to comply with the
  Sewer Use Bylaw. How well will the water be
  treated at ROPEC, the centre is designed for
  sewage. What are the long-term effects of
  removing this volume of water from the Jock River
  watershed?
• 
  
  7a

9
Ruptured section of Richmond Forcemain (Oct 26/04)
Note that the longitudinal rupture occurred in
straight section of the pipe, a possible
indication that the forcemain is reaching the end
of its 20-year lifetime.
8
10
Above photo shows ruptured pipeline.
Photo at top left shows Leachate dumping out of a
pipe.
Photo at immediate left shows a burst pipeline
under the road.
9
11
Jock River in mid-August of 2001
a river already under severe stress
during dry summers. An eco-system
approach necessitates keeping water in the
watershed.
10
12
Implications of Pipeline
Therefore

• Pipelines have an inherent risk of failure
• Property valuation
• Transportation of Leachate and Contaminated
  Groundwater raises the risk level, expands the
  area of risk as well
• Environmental Issues.

10a
13
On-site ranking versus Pipeline
Now that weve outlined some of the risks
associated with the pipeline, we would like to
discuss the results of the EA.
2) The two options also scored the same for
groundwater resources which is odd given that
on-site treatment substantially improves the
groundwater Removing the water from the
watershed earns a 10 for the pipeline.
3) As well, both options scored the same for
surface water. This also seems inaccurate seeing
Environmental Responsibility
as on-site treatment significantly improves the
water quality, whereas a pipeline maintains the
same poor quality of untreated leachate. 4) In
terms of social impacts, no consideration of the
Social Impact
System Performance
Social Impact
Environmental Responsibility
Land Use
Land Use
You will see in this slide how closely the
on-site and pipeline options fared. The green
bars represent on-site and the purple represent
the pipeline option. The associated scores were
extremely close 9.3 for the pipeline vs. 8.99
for the on-site
System Performance
risk of pipeline rupture was factored into the EA
nor were property values.
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
5) In addition, the two options scored the same
for drinking water. However, if a pipe ruptures,
the groundwater and wells will become
contaminated. This is not the case for on-site
treatment.
a difference of only 0.3. That being said,
there are some issues of contention with the
ranking and evaluation criteria which the PLC
raised 1) For example, on-site and pipeline
scored the same for vegitation and wildlife even
though the on-site provides more benefits by
improving the landscape and adding a wetland (no
change for the pipeline).
11
14
On-site ranking versus Pipeline Without Capital
Cost Differentiation
Social Impact
Environmental Responsibility
Social Impact
Environmental Responsibility
System Performance
System Performance
Land Use
Land Use
This graph shows that once upfront capital costs
are removed from the equation the two options
pipeline and on-site rank virtually the same.
12
15
Why Choose On-site?

• The Triple Bottom-line
• The 2020 strategic plans are based on a
  triple bottom line which balances economic
  against social and environmental factors. As
  such, it is important that we look at each of
  these factors equally and NOT in isolation from
  one another.
• Economic
• Environmental
• Social
• Provide a safe, reliable, and efficient treatment
  method at an asset shared by ALL citizens of
  Ottawa
• Cutting-edge technology

13
16
Why Choose On-Site?

• The Triple Bottom-Line
• Economic
• First, there are Economic Factors Onsite
  treatment, according to the EA, could cost 4.7M
  more in capital than the pipeline over 60-years
  (8.2 million vs. 3.8 million). While the
  capital would be higher for onsite, we understand
  that Budget 2005/06 can accommodate the majority
  of these costs through an existing 3.1 million
  pot remaining funds required in 2006. It may
  also be possible for some of the 10 to 15M
  surplus in 2005-06 for the Old Landfill
  Management Strategy to accommodate some of these
  additional costs.
• According to the citys figures While
  capital costs, at the front-end, would be more
  for the on-site option, it is important to note
  that ongoing operation and maintenance costs for
  both options are practically the same.
• We need to also factor in other financial
  implications
• For example timing delays would be inevitable if
  a pipeline was chosen due to bump-ups to the
  Minister of the Environment, OMB hearing(s), etc.
  These delays would result in additional costs
  for interim trucking which would put the costs of
  the pipeline even higher. We have seen how it
  has already cost the City 16M to date due to
  delays over the past decade.
• There would also be additional costs to the City
  to pay MOE fines, pay for OMB hearings and legal
  fees for City due to potential legal action by
  developers and/or residents.
• 
  13a

17
Why Choose On-site?

• The Triple Bottom-line
• Economic
• Environmental
• There are several environmental
  considerations that support on- site treatment.
• With on-site treatment, there is a reduced risk
  of contaminating further lands and zero water
  exported out of the watershed.
• There would also be high removal of effluent
  quality and an opportunity to replenish the Jock
  River (rehabilitate the water quality and
  aqua-habitat).
• We would be dealing with the problem in a
  contained area while at the same time
  replenishing the Jock River.
• The potential to turn the contaminated land back
  to agrable lands within 5-10 years for farming or
  land-fill expansion.
• Given that the City just approved a Master
  Environmental Plan in its first term leads us to
  believe that on-site treatment would be the
  preferred choice.
• 
  
  13b

18
Why Choose On-site?

• The Triple Bottom-line
• Economic
• Environmental
• Social
• There are also social factors that need to be
  considered.
• First of all, on-site treatment is more safe,
  reliable and efficient. It is more sensitive to
  changes in leachate and contaminated groundwater
  chemistry.
• Secondly, pipeline construction would be
  disruptive to Stonebridge and other residents,
  farmers and businesses in South Nepean.
• Thirdly, why should the residents of South Nepean
  have to pay the health, safety and monetary costs
  for everyone in the citys garbage! We need to
  recognize that this is a City-wide issue.
• 
  
  14

19
Why Choose On-site?
To
review

• The Triple Bottom-line
• Economic
• Environmental
• Social
• Provide a safe, reliable, and efficient treatment
  method at an asset shared by ALL citizens of
  Ottawa
• Cutting-edge technology

15
20
Grassroots Support for On-site Treatment

• E-mail and Correspondence
• Recently, Councillor Harder, her colleagues, the
  Mayor, community associations, PLC members, etc.
  have been inundated with concerns from the public
  who are voicing their strong views against a
  pipeline.
• Councillor Harder has received 155 e-mails, phone
  calls, and faxes in just the past week or so.
• Community Associations
• There are signed letter from several community
  associations (Barrhaven, Orchard Estates,
  Grenfell Glen, Fallowfield Village, and
  Stonebridge) as well as from developers and
  homebuilders all indicating their support for
  on-site treatment.
• Open Houses 
• Over 250 people attended the October 2004 open
  house with strong support for on-site treatment.
• Petition / Poll results  
• 412 people signed a Petition supporting on-site
  and over 300 people completed our on-line poll,
  with 94 of respondents indicating support for
  on-site treatment
• Todays presenters
  Here to lend their democratic voice
  in support of the right solution.

16
21
Conclusion - Weighing the Costs

• Financial implications
• Environmental implications
• Ive already touched on the financial and
  environmental implications but I would like to
  comment on community mobilization.
• Community mobilization
• We need to put an end to this 10-year
  community controversy. The history attached to
  it makes it unique from other leachate issues
  across the City.
•  
• The Barrhaven community has been galvanized since
  1998 and will continue to fight any pipeline.
  Stonebridge residents feel that adequate public
  consultation was not done initially and now it is
  the appropriate time to rectify past wrongs and
  plan appropriately for the future.
• Council has already said no to a pipeline going
  through Barrhaven and going down Golflinks and
  down Jockvale. Why would it now support a
  pipeline running down Jockvale? Why would
  Council listen to citizens along previously
  proposed pipeline routes but not for this one?
  Shouldnt all citizens be treated equally and
  listened to equally?
•  
• Now is the perfect opportunity to take advantage
  of onsite technology and to be a an environmental
  steward and leader while at the same time
  respecting the wishes of the citizens of south
  Nepean a win-win situation for everyone.
• Thank you.

17
22

• Presentation to the
• Planning and Environment Committee
• RE Trail Road Landfill Leachate
• and Nepean Landfill
• Contaminated Groundwater
• Presented by the Public Liaison Committee
• November 23, 2004
• End