No more landfills?

By Kate Harries WaterWatch
The wording of the resolution – proposed by Nickolas Rowe and seconded by Mary Munnoch – to the waste strategy steering committee seemed perfectly clear.
“That this committee wishes county council to have no more landfill sites and stop putting any waste into dump sites here or anywhere as soon as possible.”
 “I can’t support anything like that,” said Adjala Tosorontio Deputy Mayor Doug Little. He suggested Rowe work on the resolution and “have it dressed up a little so I can understand it.” Little did not elaborate when pressed by Rowe and Gord McKay about which points he didn’t understand.
“I think we’re all here for the same reason, Mr. Rowe, we’re all here to do away with landfill sites,” said Innisfil Deputy Mayor Gord Wauchope.
“Are we not working towards Zero Waste in the future?” asked Severn Mayor Phil Sled. “It’s premature to say in the future we won’t have dump sites, we may have dump sites for a waste diversion facility.”
(Question: what did Sled mean? Diversion diverts material away from dump sites.)
The motion was defeated in a 5-4 vote, by councillors Wauchope, Little, Sled, Bill Duffy (Ramara) and public member Mark Guthrie. Public members Rowe, Munnoch, McKay and John Nychuk voted in favour.
Meanwhile in Collingwood, at the airport opening, Warden Cal Patterson announced that Site 42 is off the map and will never be a dump site.
“We heard the voices of the people, and we have to listen to that voice, that people no longer want to put garbage in the ground.” Maybe it would have been helpful if Warden Cal had been present at the Midhurst meeting (he’s a member of the committee but has yet to attend) to advise his four fellow councillors that the people have spoken.
Earlier the same day
Doug Little, commenting on a Stantec slide showing landfills as a long-term option in a document that is going to a special meeting of County Council January 28: “As far as I’m concerned, on that slide, new landfills should be off it.” Janine Ralph of Stantec advised against removing any options at this stage in the process.
Site 41 resolution says ‘no development’
Public member John Nychuk suggested the Stantec strategy states that Site 41 could have other waste management uses. He asked: “Does this not offend council’s resolution…. that construction and all future development of the North Simcoe land fill site namely site 41 be discontinued. I have a little problem understanding why Site 41 is even in this document and being considered for any other use.” Environment Services Director Rob McCullough explained that it was council’s intention to let the strategy process run its course to see if any other waste management-related uses were wanted there. Nychuk retorted that the motion said “construction and all future development – it doesn’t specify a landfill site.” McCullough: “It’s implicit that it’s a landfill site.” Nychuk: “It doesn’t say that.” For the record, the September 22, 2009 motion states: THAT construction and all future development of the North Simcoe Landfill Site (Site 41) be discontinued.
Rowe proposes new tech option
Impatient with the strategy process of identifying options and criteria, Nickolas Rowe proposed cutting to the chase and proceeding immediately with a new technology process that would be the best alternative to landfill sites. He told the committee he has investigated the ArrowBio process, that has been used in Israel and Australia and accepts the whole unsorted waste stream. Recyclables are cleaned an separated, organics are processed into topsoil, leaving a largely inert residue of 10 to 15 per cent. Stantec consultant David Payne told Rowe he does not know of a “magic bullet” process and this is not the time to evaluate new technologies. A strategy is about developing techniques, not a particular technology, he said.
Province WDA review to have “significant” impact
The committee heard from John Kaasalainen, district engineer with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment on the province’s review of the
Waste Diversion Act. He said the impact in reducing the waste stream should be “significant.” Committee members told him that the 2-5 year timeline before new legislation is implemented is too long. Their waste strategy is to set the course for Simcoe County for the next 20 years and there was concern that investments in waste handling could be made that would be wasted if the province decides to take over aspects of diversion or, as proposed, requires manufacturers to do so. Kaasalainen urged committee members and the public to make their concerns known during the present public input period. Proposals for change are outlined in the Minister’s Report posted on the EBR registry at http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/  enter the number 010-8164. There will be pushback from manufacturers to the notion they should assume responsibility when their products turn to waste so write in. The Province needs to act fast, and it needs to be firm.
Public meetings on waste strategy
The county will be holding two sets of public meetings on the waste strategy – provisionally set for February 8 (Cookstown or Stroud), February 9 (Stayner), and February 10 (Midland); and May 3 (Severn or Coldwater), May 4 (Alliston) and May 5 (Midhurst). In a report that was accepted by the committee, Contracts and Collections Supervisor Willma Bureau states: “the consultants have recommended that the most beneficial form of a public meeting in their experience have utilized an open house format.” In the experience of Site 41 veterans like Stephen Ogden, the open house format allows for maximum manipulation by the consultant and minimum answers to the public. He noted that Stantec’s David Payne told the committee that all comments are to be gathered in a form that can be used in an EA (environmental assessment, for some unspecified project) and is urging full transparency with proper public meetings, at which everyone can hear the comments – and the answers.