Emotional meeting in Quyon on proposed engineered landfill site
Mo Laidlaw
So many people turned up at the Quyon Women’s Institute on November 25, that the meeting was moved to the Beach Barn and started twenty minutes late, with about 120 people attending. Mayor Bruce Campbell appeared surprised at the interest, given the low attendance at the earlier meetings. The proposal is to turn the existing trench dumpsite on Wolf Lake Road, that is used for garbage from Quyon and Onslow, into an engineered landfill.
New law on dump sites
A new provincial law on waste management requires all landfills to be lined. Leachate and gas must be collected, and surface and ground water must be monitored. Trench landfills must be closed, cleaned up and monitored. Reducing the amount of garbage by recycling and composting are other components of the new law.
Briefly, the proposal would clean up the existing trench landfill and extend its life, while saving the municipality of Pontiac transport costs and fees for about half of its waste that is currently sent to Lachute. The landfill would be the same area as the existing site, 25 acres (9.5 hectares), which is mostly surrounded by trees, on a 100 acre lot.
Where to get information
More details on the plans and the law are available in binders in kiosks set up at the Quyon and Luskville libraries. The provincial Quality of the Environment Act is available in English at www.canlii.org/qc/sta/csqc/20030815/r.s.q.q-2/whole.html. Some questions from local residents to the promoter, Denis Rouleau, and his answers are on www.theequity.ca.
Mayor in favour of engineered landfill
Mr. Campbell introduced Sylvain Bertrand, secretary-treasurer of the municipality, Dominique Leger, responsible for waste management at the MRC des Collines, Marc Drouin, a consultant engineer at Fondex, Denis Rouleau of LDC, and all seven councillors. He explained that dumps are a regional responsibility - the MRC has the final decision.
Then he listed the reasons that he is in favour of the project, starting with the prime need to clean up the existing trench landfill before the ground water becomes contaminated. The first stage of the project would transfer the existing waste into a sealed cell, from which leachate and gases would be collected. There would be ongoing water monitoring and tests for leakage, and problems could be dealt with quickly. The project does not depend on taking waste from the city of Gatineau, and this has not been discussed. It is intended to only accept garbage from West Québec.
The proposal would save many of the costs of disposing of residual waste in the future. In 2002 the municipality spent $390,000 on waste management. This is expected to rise to $590,000 by 2008 if no changes are made.
Savings with engineered landfill:
Current disposal costs (Lachute) $80,000 per year
Transportation costs to MRC transfer station $30,000 per year
Monitoring costs for existing landfill (approx.) $20,000 per year for 30 years
Environmental cleanup of existing landfill $1,500,000
In addition the municipality would retain 33% of any profits, as well as receiving rent and municipal taxes for the property.
Residents paid $122 per household for garbage collection in 2003 (businesses pay more). This would increase to $260 per year if we continued with no change, $182 for the engineered landfill and $325 per year if Pontiac garbage went to a new City of Gatineau incinerator. There would be slight increases in truck traffic, but Mr. Campbell feels that tax increases would be far more disruptive.
The project is divided into three phases, starting with applying for certification, which could take over 2 years. Part of the certification process is environmental assessment and public consultation meetings (BAPE). If certification is received the next phase would be operation, in which up to 900,000 cu metres of material could be placed in the engineered landfill (the quantity is determined by the area). This phase would last a maximum of 20 years, most likely in the range of 11 to 17 years. Phase 3 is monitoring the site for 30 years, after which it is considered to have stabilized.
Mr. Rouleau went into more details on the number of trucks. At the low end (45,000 tonnes per year), there would be 6 large trucks, or up to 18 smaller trucks per day. At the top end (75,000 tonnes per year) there would be 10 large trucks, or up to 29 smaller trucks per day. These trucks would not be allowed on municipal roads. Many would come from the MRC transfer station using highway 366 and Wolf Lake Road.
He mentioned that using the site at low volume would cost more than sending the garbage elsewhere. In other words, the last 50,000 cu metres of site, for the municipality’s sole use for a further 20 years, might be a costly solution to garbage disposal. Councillor Jim Coyle said, “We can’t predict the future. If we leave this for later, perhaps in 20 years it will be economic.”
Question and answer session
Marcel Lavigne said that the Cook Road dump in Aylmer is still costing Pontiac $15,000 per year. “How do we know something like this won’t happen?” Mr. Rouleau replied that there was no comparison between the sites. Cook Road was a former gravel pit that had filled with water, before it became an unsealed dump. Environmental regulations have changed.
Leaks can be repaired
Mr. Drouin described how during the operation, numerous wells would monitor and locate leaks in any of the three barriers, which would then be repaired. During the final monitoring phase there would be 3 wells below and one above the site. Water would be chemically analyzed twice a year from each well, at a cost of $2000 per sample. Again it was stated that the existing trench, with no barriers, is a higher pollution risk than an engineered landfill.
Reduced smells and litter
An engineered landfill has to be covered daily, reducing smells and litter. The current trench is covered once a week, only in the three summer months. Mr. Rouleau also described a system used in Chicoutimi, where a steel building covers the cell that is in use, and can be moved on rails when necessary. The building prevents snow and rain getting into the open cell, so there is no leachate to be treated. The reduction in treatment costs might pay for the building. This is a possibility that will be investigated.
The promoter is required to have guarantee bonds with the ministry of the environment to pay for any environmental disaster. The binders in the kiosks have information on financial guarantees.
A resident wanted to know exactly what earnings Mr. Rouleau’s company expects to make, of which the municipality would receive 33%. This depends on the customers, but the anticipated profit is about $8 million.
Some residents against landfill
Vladimir Tolstoy presented his petition asking for a delay for consideration of alternatives. “I live right next door,” said another neighbour, “What assurance do we have that property values won’t dive?” Mr. Campbell replied that with cleanup of the trench, property values would improve.
Someone asked, “Why can’t we just pay to clean up the existing trench? $1.5 million is only $800-$900 per household.” Mr. Campbell was stunned that anyone would favour higher taxes, after the reaction to the last budget.
Another resident said, “Garbage is garbage. We don’t want more of it even if it is in a sealed site.” He had a horror story of a worker at the Trail Rd site, sticking a knife in the membrane to remove air bubbles, so that the sand layer could be put on. By this time some of the audience were getting excited. When Mr. Campbell asked for those in favour of the engineered landfill to raise their hands, there were cries of outrage and few hands visible.
What’s next?
Katharine Fletcher asked, “What are you going to do next?” A possible referendum was discussed, with Mr. Campbell against, as it would cost $10,000. Councillor Roger Larose said, “We need to go to referendum”, before doing such a big project.
I was left with several questions. How will a referendum question be worded? What will we do with our garbage in 20 or 30 years? How do we encourage consumers to reduce their garbage by re-using, recycling and composting, and returning bottles and cans? How do we stop them throwing stuff out of car windows? How do we encourage manufacturers and grocery stores to reduce packaging and plastic bags? (and so on.)