HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-018-06
Clw:.pn
REPORT II 2
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting:
COUNCIL
Date:
Monday, February 13, 2005
Report #: PSD-018-06
File #:
PLN 33.11.1
By-law #:
Subject:
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON COMMENTS
DURHAMIYORK RESIDUAL WASTE DISPOSAL STUDY - PROPOSED
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended to Council:
1. THAT Report PSD-018-06 be received;
2. THAT the letter from the Director of Planning Services to the Ministry of the
Environment, dated February 6, 2006 and attached to this report as Attachment 1 be
endorsed as the comments of the Municipality of Clarington on the Proposed
Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference for the Durham/York Residual Waste
Disposal Planning Study; and
3. THAT a copy of this report and Council's resolution be forwarded to the Ministry of the
Environment, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch and the Region of
Durham Works Department.
Submitted by: ~
rta J. Crome, M.C.I.P.,R.P.P.
Director, Planning Services
ReVieWedbYO~~
Franklin Wu
Chief Administrative Officer
JAS/FL/DJC/df
6 February 2006
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905) 623-0830
REPORT NO.: PSD-018-06
PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The Regions of Durham and York are both currently implementing Blue Box and organic
waste collection programs that are expected to divert upwards of 60% of their solid
waste from disposal within a few years. The Regions have commenced a joint Residual
Waste Disposal Planning Study to determine how to manage the residual solid waste
remaining after diversion efforts. They are also seeking to explore the potential for the
residual waste stream to be used as a fuel source to produce energy to meet the
Province's growing energy needs.
1.2 The Residual Waste Study is subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.
Proposed Terms of Reference for the Environmental Assessment (EA) study have been
submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for approval. The Director of
Planning Services has already submitted comments to the Ministry by letter in order to
meet the comment deadline of February 6, 2006 (see Attachment 1). A copy of the
Terms of Reference is available in the Planning Services Department for review.
Appendix 'F' to the Terms of Reference forms Attachment 3 to this report.
1.3 The EA Terms of Reference are also accompanied by five Background Documents that
contain the rationale supporting the development of the Terms of Reference. However,
these documents do not form part of the Terms of Reference submitted for review and
approval by MOE.
1.4 The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the Durham/York
Residual Waste Disposal Planning Study and the proposed EA Terms of Reference,
and to seek Council's endorsement of the comments on the Terms of Reference
submitted to MOE by the Director of Planning Services.
2.0 OVERVIEW OF TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE RESIDUAL WASTE EA
2.1 Purpose and Description of the UndertakinQ
2.1.1 The purpose of the undertaking, as set out in the Terms of Reference, is:
. To process - physically, biologically and/or thermally - the waste that remains after
the application of both Regions' at-source waste programs in order to recover
resources - both material and energy - and to minimize the amount of material
requiring landfill disposal.
. In proceeding with this undertaking only those approaches that will meet or exceed
all regulatory requirements will be considered.
The waste proposed to be managed will be:
. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) from residential sources generated within Durham
and York Regions remaining after at-source diversion;
REPORT NO.: PSD-018-06
PAGE 3
. A portion of post-diversion Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) waste
traditionally managed by the Regions at their waste disposal facilities; and
. Municipal post-diversion residual waste from neighbouring non-Greater Toronto
Area (GTA) municipalities that may provide disposal capacity for processing
residues.
2.1.2 A description of the proposed undertaking has been developed for the purpose of
initiating the EA Study. The undertaking would be a residual waste processing
facility(ies) that would be capable of managing the minimum 316,000 tonnes/year of
residual wastes projected to remain after the achievement of the Regions' diversion
objectives. This amount includes the receipt of a quantity of additional post-diversion
waste from other sources. Over the 35-year planning period (2011 - 2045), it is
projected that a minimum of 13.3 million tonnes of residual waste will require
management.
2.1.3 The description of the undertaking may be refined through the course of the EA study.
The final description of the undertaking will be included in the EA document submitted
to the Minister of Environment for approval.
2.1.4 The agreement between Durham and York recognizes that each Region would be
responsible for the disposal of its share of any residue created from the processing of
the waste (likely landfill). Agreements with other municipalities that may be able to
provide disposal capacity in return for accepting residual waste at the new Durham/York
facility(ies) are being contemplated.
2.2 Alternatives to the UndertakinQ (Alternative Approaches and TechnoloQies)
2.2.1 During development of the EA Terms of Reference, potentially available ways to
process the waste remaining after diversion, or "Alternatives To", were screened for
reasonableness and applicability to the purpose of the undertaking. As a result, the
following "Alternatives To" will be considered in the EA study:
. Mechanical Treatment -This alternative may be considered for the pre-processing of
wastes to be managed by biological or thermal processing alternatives to capture
recyclable content and to improve the consistency and mixture of materials for
processing. It may also be used for the management of the respective process
residues to capture recyclable content (eg. metals). Examples include screens for
sorting materials and magnets for recovering ferrous metal.
. Biological Treatment - This alternative offers the potential for a relatively stable
landfill with reduced odours and other nuisance impacts, and may be applicable to
the EA given the proportion of organics remaining in the waste stream. Examples
include anaerobic digestion and aerobic bio-drying of alternative fuel.
. Thermal Treatment - Based on recent industry activity in Ontario and facilities
operating in other jurisdictions, this alternative is reasonably available from both a
REPORT NO.: PSD-018-06
PAGE 4
commercial and technical perspective. Examples includes gasification, pyrolysis,
and conventional combustion (ie. incineration).
2.2.2 A seven step process is proposed in the Terms of Reference for the selection of a
preferred "Alternative To" for the managing of the residual wastes. This process
includes assembling each of the component alternatives into a range of alternative
residual waste processing systems with each system being capable of managing the
entire projected residual waste stream. Each of the alternative disposal systems will be
evaluated to determine the potential effects associated with it (including natural
environment, social, economic, legal and technical effects), and potential mitigative
measures to address these effects. The system which exhibits the best balance of
advantages and disadvantages, based on criteria established by the public and
agencies, will be selected as the preferred "Alternative To".
2.2.3 It is expected that each of the proposed processing alternatives will require landfill
disposal capacity for process residues. The landfill component will be identified
following the identification of the preferred "Alternative To". Options to address the
landfill component, depending on the amount of capacity required, may include
contracting to use private sector landfill capacity, the identification of new landfill
capacity, and/or the establishment of agreements with neighbouring municipalities
outside the GT A.
2.3 Alternative Methods of ImplementinQ the UndertakinQ (Alternative Sites)
2.3.1 Following the identification of the preferred "Alternative To" (ie. residual waste
processing system), a seven step process will be used to identify and evaluate
"Alternative Methods (ie. potential sites). Site selection will start with a review of the
entire study area to identify those areas considered to be generally unsuitable for the
purposes of locating the preferred disposal system. The criteria to be used to exclude
areas from further consideration are set out in Appendix F (Table F-1), and include
significant natural heritage areas, prime agricultural lands, and residentially designated
lands. The broad areas of land remaining after the application of these exclusionary
criteria would be considered as generally suitable for the purpose of locating the
preferred disposal system.
2.3.2 Specific siting requirements based on the preferred Alternative To (eg. minimum
required site area) will be used to identify a list of siting opportunities In those areas
identified as being generally suitable. At this point, a long-list of siting opportunities will
be developed with a focus on publicly owned lands and, if necessary, the issuance of a
request for "willing seller" properties within the areas previously identified as being
generally suitable.
2.3.3 If it is determined that the long-list does not include a reasonable range of alternative
sites, then a review of privately owned lands in the study area would be undertaken to
identify additional siting opportunities. The owners of identified properties would be
approached to determine if a negotiated acquisition of property is feasible, in effect
becoming a willing seller. The only circumstances that would lead to the expropriation
of privately owned lands would be a determination, in consultation with the public and
REPORT NO.: PSD-018-06
PAGE 5
MOE, that the publicly owned and willing seller sites already identified still do not
present a reasonable range of siting alternatives.
2.3.4 Appendix F (Table F-2) of the Terms of Reference sets out the preliminary factors to be
used in the further evaluation of the long-list of potential sites. The purpose of this
evaluation is to eliminate less preferred sites using criteria such as: proximity to required
infrastructure, potential impact of the haul route, and land use compatibility. In addition,
prospective vendors of the technology(ies) comprising the preferred disposal system will
be requested to submit their qualifications and may be invited to submit their own
alternative site(s) for consideration. Prospective vendor site(s) would be required to
meet minimum compliance requirements, such as being located in Ontario, in order to
be included on the short list of sites.
2.3.5 The short list of sites will then be evaluated using the criteria set out in Appendix F
(Table F-3). These criteria include public health and safety, natural environment, social,
economic, technical and legal considerations. The application of this criteria will result
in the identification of a preferred site. Concurrently, a Request for Proposals will be
issued to prospective vendors with the intent of identifying a preferred vendor.
2.4 Required Approvals
2.4.1 Once the EA study is completed, it must be submitted to MOE for final approval. The
Terms of Reference indicate that MOE approval of the EA study is currently expected to
occur in 2009.
2.4.2 The Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA) requires that a Provisional Certificate
of Approval be issued in order for a waste management facility to be established and
operated. Detailed investigations will be completed at the preferred site, once selected,
to satisfy the requirements of the EPA in order to obtain a Certificate of Approval.
These studies will confirm the suitability of the proposed facility(ies) on the proposed
site.
2.4.3 The Terms of Reference is silent on the issue of whether Regional or area municipal
planning approvals will be required for the new facility(ies). If the land and waste
facility(ies) are owned individually or jointly by Durham or York Regions, it is expected
that planning approvals would not be required. However, the Terms of Reference
(Section 2.2) note the potential for the study proponents (ie. Durham and York Regions)
to enter into partnership agreements with private sector parties, in particular the
vendor(s) of the preferred technology(ies), in order to implement the undertaking.
Accordingly, the need for area municipal and Regional planning approvals for the
proposed waste management facility(ies) will be determined once the issue of
ownership has been determined later in the study.
2.5 Estimated Schedule
2.5.1 The Terms of Reference include a preliminary schedule for the undertaking of the EA
Study and implementing the undertaking, as follows:
REPORT NO.: PSD-018-06
PAGE 6
Project MlI~$tone Estimated
Timeframe
MOE approval of EA Terms of Reference March 2006
Initiate EA Study March 2006
Evaluate "Alternatives To" the undertaking (ie. technologies) 2006
Select Preferred "Alternative To" 2006
Evaluate "Alternative Methods" of implementing the undertaking (ie. siting) 2006/
Initiate competitive process to identify a preferred vendor technology early 2007
Select preferred site and preferred vendor End of 2007
Complete site specific studies to confirm suitability
Documentation to support approvals 2008
Submit applications
EA review and approval by MOE 2009
Implementation of the undertaking Mid 2009 to
2010
This schedule will be updated as the EA study progresses.
3.0 COMMENTS
3.1 As noted previously, Attachment 1 to this report is a letter to the Ministry of the
Environment, submitted on February 6, 2006, providing the Municipality's comments on
the proposed Terms of Reference. The first point in the letter requests that the Terms
of Reference be modified to clarify the discussion on the site selection process.
3.2 More importantly, the letter indicates the Municipality's objection to the proposal in the
Terms of Reference to focus the site selection process on publicly owned sites
considered to be generally suitable for the processing of post-diversion waste such as
existing and/or designated industrial lands. It notes that no justification is provided for
giving priority to publicly-owned lands and that it assumes that there is a reasonable
range of alternative sites available for analysis and comparison.
3.3 A further comment indicates that the net effect of a focus on publicly owned lands would
be to prejudice the site selection process in favour of sites owned by Durham and York
Regions since there is no guarantee that any other public body would be the willing
seller of a potential site. The letter also notes that is highly unusual for the site search
for a public facility to be focused on publicly owned lands, and that the first priority of the
siting process should be to identify the best possible site.
REPORT NO.: PSD-018-06
PAGE 7
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Council's endorsement of the comments submitted by Staff will strengthen the
Municipality's position that the proposed Terms of Reference, by focusing on publicly
owned lands, will unfairly bias the site selection process. Although it is recognized that
there is some urgency is identifying and implementing a management process for the
residual waste, it is equally important that the EA process be unbiased and that it
provide a wide range of alternative sites for analysis and comparison.
4.2 Staff will continue to monitor the progress of the Residual Waste EA and will report back
to Council as required.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -
Letter from Director of Planning Services to the Ministry of Environment,
dated February 6, 2006
Glossary of Terms
Appendix 'F' - Proposed Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference
- DurhamlYork Residual Waste Disposal Planning Study
Attachment 2 -
Attachment 3 -
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Mr. David Bell
Project Officer, EA Project Coordination Section
Ms. Barb Boffey
DurhamlYork Residual Waste Study Project Coordinator
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-018-06
~!~ipgron
February 6, 2006
Mr. David Bell
Project Officer, EA Project Coordination Section
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment
2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A
Toronto, ON M4V 1 L5
Dear Sir:
RE: Proposed Terms of Reference - DurhamNork Residual Waste Environmental
Assessment
Comments of the Municipality of Clarington
File No.: PLN 33.11.1
Please accept this letter as the comments of the Municipality of Clarington on the proposed
Terms of Reference for the Durham/York Residual Waste Environmental Assessment.
Section 4.2 of the proposed Terms of Reference sets out the process for determining
"Alternative Methods" of Implementing the Undertaking (Alternative Sites). This section
indicates that the process of identifying siting alternatives for a processing facility(ies) "will not
seek to consider all lands within the study area but rather will focus on those lands considered
to be generally suitable for the processing of post-diversion residual waste such as existing
and/or designated industrial lands." It is proposed that only two categories of sites be
considered in the EA evaluation:
. Publicly owned lands .... that are considered to be generally suitable for the processing
of residual waste; and
. Lands offered by a "willing seller" property owner .... that are located in areas that are
considered to be generally suitable for the processing of residual waste.
The wording of Section 4.2 would appear to indicate that the EA, and in particular the site
selection process, will only consider publicly owned lands and sites offered by willing sellers.
However, Section 6.2 (Screening and Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Methods) indicates
that site selection will start with a review of the entire study area, which is identified by Appendix
D as being all of the Regions of Durham and York. It is only in Step 4 of the evaluation process
that a preference for publicly owned lands and, if necessary, sites offered by willing sellers, is
expressed. The proposed Terms of Reference further state that the only circumstances that
would lead to the expropriation of privately owned land would be a determination that publicly
owned and willing seller lands do not provide a reasonable range of siting alternatives.
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905) 623-3379
D. Bell - Page 2
The Terms of Reference should be revised to clarify the process by which potential sites will be
identified. Specifically, Section 4.2 should be revised to more clearly indicate that the initial site
search will include all lands within Durham and York Regions, and that publicly owned lands
and willing seller sites will only be given priority in the site selection process once a long list of
potential sites has been identified.
Nevertheless, the Municipality of Clarington strongly objects to focusing the site search on
publicly owned lands. No discussion or justification for the use of this criteria is provided in
either the Terms of Reference document or in the Background Papers (which are not subject to
approval by your Ministry). It also assumes that there is a variety of surplus publicly-owned
industrial lands that would provide a reasonable range of alternative sites for analysis that does
not pre-determine the site selection process.
Although it could be argued that publicly owned lands would be less difficult to acquire than
privately-owned lands, in reality this argument would only apply to lands owned by the Regions
of Durham and York. There is no guarantee that any other public body would be the willing
seller of a potential site identified through the site selection process. As such, the net effect of
a focus on publicly owned lands would be to prejudice the site selection process in favour of
sites owned by the two Regional governments.
The focus on publicly owned lands would also appear to be problematic given that the potential
number of sites will be further limited by the exclusionary criteria outlined in Appendix F and
further described in Background Paper 2-3 (Section 2.2: Area Screening). In particular, both the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Protection Plan include conditions
that restrict the establishment of infrastructure, including waste management systems. These
restrictions, together with the long list of proposed exclusionary criteria, further brings into
question the advisability of further limiting the site search by a focus on publicly owned lands.
As a final point, it is highly unusual for public agencies seeking to locate public infrastructure to
focus their site search on lands in public ownership. The first priority of the site search should
be to identify the best possible site.
A report seeking Clarington Council's endorsement of these comments will be considered at the
Council meeting of February 13, 2006. Should you have any questions, please contact Janice
Szwarz of my office.
id J. Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning Services
/df
cc: Mayor John Mutton
Councillor Jim Schell
Barb Boffey, Regional Municipality of Durham
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-018-06
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Aerobic Treatment
The biological treatment of organic waste by bacteria that require oxygen.
Anaerobic Digestion
The controlled biological conversion of organic material, by bacteria, in the absence of oxygen,
to producer biogas, liquid effluent and a solid, partially stabilized organic material.
Combustion
1. Burning, or rapid oxidation, accompanied by the release of energy in the form of heat and
light. 2. The controlled burning of waste, in which heat chemically alters organic compounds,
converting it into stable inorganics such as carbon dioxide and water.
EA
Environmental Assessment
EPA
Environmental Protection Act
Gasification
The conversion of solid material such as coal or waste into a gas for use as a fuel.
IC&I
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional
MOE
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
MSW
Municipal Solid Waste
Pyrolysis
Decomposition of waste and its constituent chemicals by heat in the absence of oxygen
Attachment 3
To Report PSD-018-06
York Region
Proposed
EnvironlTlental AssesslTlent
TerlTls of Reference
...prepared in accordance with Sections 6.(1) and
6.(2)(a) of the Environmental Assessment Act
December 16, 2005
MacViro
Ji
Appendix F
Preliminary Screening and Evaluation Criteria for
"Alternative Methods" of Implementing the Undertaking
(i.e., Alternative Sites)
lm'k Region
Appendix F
Preliminary Screening and Evaluation Criteria
for "Alternative Methods" of Implementing the
Undertaking (i.e. Alternative Sites)
TABLE F-l: Preliminary Exclusionary Criteria for the Identification of Suitable
Areas where a long-term waste management facility could be sited. (Step 2)
[J Exclude designated! lands located within areas protected by Provinciall Federal
legislation.
[] Exclude designated residential areas and areas within an appropriate separation
distance2 of these designations.
n Exclude designated Natural Heritage Features and Areas and areas within an
appropriate separation distance of these designations. Examples include:
o Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species and Species at Risk;
[] Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest;
[I Significant Wetlands, Woodlands, etc.;
[J Ground water Discharge/Recharge Areas;
[J Wellhead Protection Areas and Infiltration Areas;
l] Designated Hazard Land; and,
II Conservation Areas.
o Exclude Prime Agricultural Lands.
n Exclude designated Park / Recreational Lands and areas within an appropriate
separation distance ofthese designations.
f] Exclude Institutional facilities and areas within an appropriate separation distance of
these facilities or lands (e.g. schools, hospitals).
IJ Exclude areas around federally regulated airports as per Transport Canada Guidelines.
1 Designated refers to land uses and related policies as set out in FederallProvincial
Statues and Regulations and applicable Municipal Official Plans/Municipal Policy Plans.
These designations will be clearly defined at the outset of the evaluation of "Alternative
Methods"
2 Appropriate Separation Distances will be defined following the identification of the
preferred "Alternative to" and in consultation with the public, agencies and the MaE.
Consideration will also be given to existing land use compatibility guidelines including, for
example, the MOE's "O-Series" Guidelines for Land Use Compatibility, and B-7 Series
Guidelines for Reasonable Use Concept.
lork RegiOll
Appendix F
Preliminary Screening and Evaluation Criteria
for "Alternative Methods" of Implementing the
Undertaking (i.e. Alternative Sites)
TABLE F-2: Preliminary Factors to be used in the Evaluation of the "Long-List" of
Alternative Sites. (Step 5)
Factor
Constraint
Proximity to required
infrastructure (dependent on
technology selected)
Example: Maximum distance (to be specified) from electrical
grid interconnection point or heat load if an EFW facility was
part of the preferred "Alternativc To"
Distance to required sewer and water services
Site accessibility
Maximum distance (to be specified) from major highway, rail
line and/or transit system
Potential impact of the haul route
(i.e., tratTic, noise, land use, cost)
Length of haul route (distance to main waste generation
so urce( s))
Land use along haul route
Road type, width and traf1ic volumes along haul route
Property size
Minimum size (determined in Step 3) in comparison with the
actual site size (ie. amount of surplus land available beyond the
minimum site size requirement)
Land use compatibility
Designatcd industrial or industrial typc land use adjacent to the
site
Availability of site
Requirement to acquire site through expropriation
Potential impacts on unregulated
airport operation
Proximity to unregulated airports
}m;k RegiQn
Appendix F
Preliminary Screening and Evaluation Criteria
for" Alternative Methods" of Implementing the
Undertaking (i.e. Alternative Sites)
TABLE F-3: Preliminary Comparative Evaluation Criteria to be used in the
Evaluation of the "Short-List" of Alternative Sites. (Step 6)
Environmental Considerations
Preliminary Evaluation Criteria
Public Health & Safety and
Natural Environment
Considerations
[] Potential Air Quality Impacts
Note: The preferred technology must at least
meet all applicable air quality regulations.
[] Potential Water Quality Impacts (Surface Water
and Groundwater)
Ii Potential Environmentally Sensitive Areas and
Species Impacts
iJ Potential Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology
Impacts
Social and Cultural Considerations
Ll Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed
Land Uses
I] Potential Impact on Residential Areas
il Potential Impact on Parks and Recreational Areas
II Potential Impact on Institutional Facilities or
Areas
o Potential Impact on Archaeological and Cultural
Resources
lJ Potential Traffic Impacts
Economic / Financial
Considerations
[] Operation and Maintenance Costs for
Faci lity(ies)
11 Capital Costs to develop Facility(ies)
Technical Considerations
[] Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure
[] Design/operational flexibility provided by site
Legal Considerations
U Complexity of Required Approvals
!i Complexity of Required Agreements