In preparation of the Public Meetings this Wednesday and Thursday I thought it would be a good reminder to post excerpts of the Dillon review of the Stantec Report. The following is directly pulled from the Executive Summary that can be found on Shapeyourcityhalifax.ca in the Documents section. (P.S. - Check out the last sentence!) Dillon’s review of the Stantec document resulted in the identification of 13 issues of concern, requiring additional assessment, clarification and/or explanation. They are summarized as follows: Front End Processing and Waste Stabilization Facility (FEP/WSF) 1. Incorrect definition of the intended role of the FEP/WSF. 2. Inconsistent characterization of the current quantities of recyclables and compostables that exist within the mixed waste stream. 3. Unsubstantiated conclusion regarding the acceptability of disposing hazardous waste materials at the RDF. 4. Failure to acknowledge the mixed load deterrent and segregated material educational benefits of the FEP. 5. Failure to acknowledge the reduction in traditional landfill site nuisance concerns (e.g., birds, blowing litter) as a result of processing activities within the FEP/WSF. Residuals Disposal Facility (RDF) 1. Lack of acknowledgment and understanding of the unique characteristics of the waste and cover material at the RDF. 2. Inaccurate representation of the landfill gas generation characteristics of a processed waste versus unprocessed/raw waste disposal site. 3. Selection of unrepresentative landfill sites as a basis for an analysis of RDF operating costs. 4. Failure to recognize the local and provincial community commitment implications of reducing the current RDF liner standard. 5. Failure to identify potential cost and operational implications of increasing the RDF design height. 6. Lack of acknowledgement of the integrated operational relationship of the FEP/WSF/RDF and the resulting benefits of local community acceptance, population growth and developer confidence. Regional Waste Resource Management Campus 1. Lack of recognition of the importance of a decentralized facility development model in relation to the original objectives of the 1995 CSC Strategy. 2. Preparation of an unrealistic and unsubstantiated estimate of the schedule and development costs required to establish a regional waste resource campus. On the key question of the current effectiveness of the FEP/WSF, Stantec, based on an inaccurate set of applicable performance criteria, conclude that “the FEP/WSF concept yields few benefits…” and recommend its closure by the end of 2013. Dillon’s review of HRM’s 1999 Agreement with the Halifax Waste Resource Society (HWRS) confirmed that the original commitment made by HRM to the host community was to ensure that no unprocessed waste would be placed in the RDF. With reference to the language contained in the 1999 Agreement, it is our opinion that FEP/WSF has consistently and effectively met that operational obligation and continues to do so. Generally, the analysis presented in the Stantec document could be characterized as a preliminary “desktop” review with a very limited presentation of assumptions, estimation details and data sources. Particularly notable were the Canadian and American landfill sites selected for comparison to the Otter Lake RDF in terms of operational cost. Of the 11 sites brought forward for comparison in the Stantec document, five had “clay only” liner systems (which have not been permitted in NS for over 20 years) and five had incoming waste tonnages ranging from five to over 19 times the amount of material that is currently accepted at the Otter Lake RDF. These and other important details impacting the relevance of the sites brought forward for comparison are absent from the Stantec document. Similarly, estimated costs for proposed facilities are presented in an unqualified manner and with very little supporting information. A primary example of this the capital cost estimate for a proposed regional waste resource campus provided in Section 5.5 of the Stantec report. In the absence of a conceptual facility layout, identification of any general site attributes (e.g., proximity to servicing, access to a highway network) or definition of a recommended contingency allowance, a capital cost estimate of $10 million is confidently provided. Finally, the Stantec document presents an analysis with limited recognition of the social and political complexities associated with the development and implementation of a municipal waste management strategy. Issues such as previous community commitments (both locally and at the provincial level) and challenges associated with the siting of new waste management infrastructure are mentioned only in passing. Those who were involved in the long and contentious process to identify a waste resource management solution leading up to and following the closure of the Highway 101 Landfill site recognize the danger in this approach. If the establishment of a municipal solid waste program could be conducted in the absence of public involvement with a primary focus on technical matters and costs, it would certainly make the task much easier for system managers. But as residents of HRM know, definition, implementation and ongoing operation of a comprehensive, integrated waste management program, to be successful, must be completed through direct and meaningful engagement with system users and host community residents.
Posted on: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:34:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015