Opponents protest MoP landfill site proposal at public meeting by Jonathan Crowe • The Equity, Dec. 3, 2003

QUYON — An engineered landfill site proposed for North Onslow was the subject of heated debate between residents opposed to the plan and the mayor and council supporting it at a public consultation meeting held last week.

While supporters maintained that the project would eliminate a potential health hazard at the current landfill and be a financial benefit to the community, opponents argued that any benefits would be outweighed by the sheer size of the project, and worried that residents would lose control once the contract had been signed.

About 120 people attended the public consultation held at the Quyon Lions Hall Nov. 25, where the mayor and councillors of the Municipality of Pontiac and the contractor, Denis Rouleau, president of LDC Gestion et Services environnementeaux, tried to make their case and answer audience questions.

MoP Mayor Bruce Campbell opened the meeting by making his case for the engineered landfill.

For Mayor Campbell, the landfill addresses two problems looming on the horizon: forthcoming provincial regulations that will make the current trench landfill on Wolf Lake Road more expensive to operate; and the potential that pollutants leaking from the dump site could contaminate the groundwater.

“Doing nothing does not mean that nothing changes,” said Campbell, who estimated that maintaining the status quo would cost ratepayers an extra $138 per year.

Cleaning up the site would cost $1.5 million or more, he said.

Under the proposal, LDC would clean up the current landfill and replace it with an engineered landfill, which it would operate on a for-profit basis, taking in garbage from across the region.

Controversy erupted earlier this year when it was suggested that residential garbage from Gatineau might be taken to the site, but Rouleau assured the meeting that that option was no longer on the table.

“We’re coming to you very early in the project,” said Rouleau. “A lot of elements are not confirmed yet.”

MoP residents would get free non-commercial access to the dump, and the MoP would be entitled to a one-third share of the profits.

The deal would last until 850,000 cubic metres of the site’s 900,000-cubic-metre capacity had been used, or for 20 years, whichever came first; Rouleau projected between 11 and 17 years. At that point, the remaining capacity — about 20 years of the MoP’s garbage output — would be turned over to the MoP. LDC would continue to monitor the site for an additional 30 years.

Details of the proposal, along with questions and answers about the technical aspects of the project, have been covered in recent columns by Katharine Fletcher in The Equity and on the weekly paper’s web site.

Campbell argued that the proposal was a win-win situation for all concerned. Garbage expenses would be kept down and an unsecured landfill site would be cleaned up.

“We negotiated ourselves a good deal for all parties and we’re proud of it,” said Campbell.

For Rouleau, whose company stands to make a projected profit of $8 million over the project’s lifetime, public support was crucial to the project’s success. With the public behind the project, LDC could receive a certificate to operate the site within two and a half years, rather than the five years it normally takes.

Some residents were concerned about the extra traffic on the road that the new landfill would generate, or the smell, or the risk to their well water. Nor was everyone convinced that the new landfill would be any safer than the current site.

“All landfills leak. All liners leak,” said Wolf Lake Road resident Vladimir Tolstoy after the meeting.

Tolstoy was not satisfied with the assurances that the engineered landfill technology would prevent contaminants from reaching the groundwater.

“We have no idea what this is going to be like 100 years from now. We have no control over what goes in there,” he said, pointing out that people put questionable things in dumpsters.

The scale of the project was another issue. Tolstoy pointed out that trench landfills were only legal in communities of fewer than 2,000 people, and only when they were more than 50 kilometres from a technical landfill site.

“The scale of the increase is something like 50 to 75 fold,” he said, arguing that the risk posed by a small trench landfill was much smaller.

“Nobody wants 50 to 75 times bigger,” said Tolstoy. “That’s scary.”

If there is a leak, the pollutants would hit the groundwater “thousands of times faster than our little dump now,” he said.

“Eventually this will leak,” he warned.

Rouleau conceded that a leak was a remote possibility.

“That’s why we don’t want it!” one resident shouted in response.

Another resident agreed with Tolstoy: “I think cleaning up 33,000 (cubic metres) would be a lot easier than cleaning up 900,000.”

Given the duration of the project, Tolstoy said he wanted more consultation.

“Look, you’re making a decision that’s 52 years, give or take,” he said. “It’s really hard to fathom that my children’s children’s children could be born with a birth defect.”

“I think you need more openness, more forums, more people involved,” said Tolstoy.

Tolstoy also suggested that any of the profits the MoP might be entitled to might evaporate through creative accounting.

“Who knows? There might never be a profit,” he said. “I think the councillors and mayors may have been duped.”

For his part, Tolstoy said he preferred shutting down the dump altogether and trucking the garbage to Lachute or another site, even if that meant an increase in taxes.

At the meeting, Tolstoy presented a petition with 230 signatures complaining that MoP council was rushing into the deal.

“I think that shows you that people are not happy,” he said.

At times during the meeting, both Campbell and Rouleau struggled to make their points.

Campbell, sometimes shouting to make himself heard, emphasized the benefits and pointed out that the alternatives would cost more: “It will cost more to monitor the current site. It will cost more to send it away.”

“The site you have now is more dangerous than an engineered site,” said Rouleau.

By the end of the meeting, Rouleau was somewhat philosophical.

“I think I need to sit down and reevaluate everything,” he said. “Do we go ahead or not? We wanted them to express their opinions, and they expressed their opinions.”

Rouleau said that if public opinion was solidly against the project, he would not pursue it — he would not get a certificate in the face of public opposition.

Note: This article has not been updated since its first publication. As a result, some of the facts referred to in the text may now be out of date.