HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24/2006•
Energizing Ontario
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
DATE: APRIL 24, 2006
TIME: 9:30 A.M.
PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. ROLL CALL
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
3. MINUTES
(a) Minutes of a Regular Meeting of April 10, 2006
4.(a) PRESENTATIONS
(i) Dave Hardy, Hardy, Stevenson, and Associates, -Port Granby Project
- Peer Review of the Enhanced Facility Design
(b) DELEGATIONS
301
(i) John Stephenson, South East Ratepayers Association -Port Granby Project
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS
(a) Application to Amend the Zoning By-law 84-63 and Removal of Part Lot 501
.Control to Permit the Construction of Four Semi-Detached Dwellings
Applicant: Condor Developments Ltd.
Report: PSD-044-06
(b) Application to Amend the Zoning By-law 84-63 to Permit a Restaurant 503
57 Mill Street South, Newcastle Village
Applicant: 1664312 Ontario Incorporated
Report: PSD-045-06
(c) Applications to Amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law 505
To Permit an Increase in Density for a Six Storey Apartment Building
Applicant: Dunbury Development (Green) Ltd.
Report: PSD-046-06
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905) 623-3379
G.P. 8~ A. Agenda - 2 - April 24, 2006
6. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
(a) PSD-044-06 - Zoning By-law Amendment and Removal of Part Lot .601
Control To Permit the Construction of Four Semi-
Detached Dwellings
Applicant: Condor Developments Ltd.
(b) PSD-045-06 - Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit A 609
Restaurant with Reduced Parking Standards
- 57 Mill Street South, Newcastle Village
Applicant: 1664312 Ontario Incorporated
(c) PSD-046-06 - Applications to Amend the Clarington Official Plan 622
And Zoning By-law to Permit an Increase in
Density for a Six Storey Apartment Building
Applicant: Dunbury Development (Green) Ltd.
(d) PSD-047-06 - Port Granby Project -Update on Enhanced Facility 629
Design and Revised Environmental Assessment
Study Report
(e) PSD-048-06 - Modification to OPA 34 -Oak Ridges Moraine 685
(f) PSD-049-06 - Durham Region Official Plan Review -Recommended 689
Directions for Population, Employment and Urban Land
7. ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
(a) EGD-023-06 - Monthly Report on Building Permit Activity -March 2006 701
8. OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT
No Reports
9. EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
(a) ESD-005-06 - Monthly Response Report -March 2006 901
(b) ESD-006-06 - Emergency Preparedness -Public Alerting 904
10. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
No Reports
11. CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
No Reports
G.P. & A. Agenda - 3 - April 24,2006
12. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
(a) COD-017-06 - Supplier Information Night 1201
13. FINANCE DEPARTMENT
No Reports
14. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S DEPARTMENT
No Reports
15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
16. OTHER BUSINESS
17. ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC MEETING .
~ CORPORATION OF THE REPORT ~~ PSD-044-06
~~ ~ MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON CONDOR DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
Leading the Way NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BY: CONDOR DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE ZONING BY-LAW 84-63
TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington will consider a proposed Zoning
By-law Amendment, under Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended.
APPLICATION DETAILS
The proposed zoning by-law amendment submitted by Armstrong Harrison Associates on behalf of Condor
Developments Ltd. would permit the rezoning of "Agricultural (A) Zone" lands to an appropriate urban residential
zone in order to permit the development of 4semi-detached dwellings on the two existing lots.
The subject property is located between 22 and 32 Mann Street, Bowmanville as shown on reverse.
Planning File Nos:: ZBA 2006-0006
PUBLIC MEETING
The Municipality of Clarington will hold a public meeting to provide interested parties the opportunity to make
comments, identify issues and provide additional information relative to the proposed development. The public
meeting will be held on:
DATE: Monday, Apri124, 2006
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Municipal Administrative Centre,
40 Temperance St., Bowmanville, Ontario
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or
in opposition. to the proposal. The start time listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and
Administration Committee Meeting commences.
If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on this application you can make a deputation to Council at their meeting
on Monday, May 1, 2006, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you wish to appear before Council, you must register
with the Clerks Department by the Wednesday noon, April 26, 2006 to have your name appear in the Agenda.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
If you wish to make a written submission or if you wish to be notified of subsequent meetings or the adoption of the
proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, you must submit a written request to the Clerk's Department, 2nd Floor, 40
Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1 C 3A6.
Additional information relating to the proposal is available for inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the
Planning Services Department, 3rd Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6, or by calling Bob
Russell at (905) 623-3379 extension 341 or by a-mail at brussell@clarington.net.
APPEAL
If a person or public body that files a notice of appeal of a decision for the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to
the Ontario Municipal Board does not make oral. submissions at a public meeting or does not make written
submissions before the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is approved, the Ontario Municipal Board may
dismiss all or part of the appeal.
Date Municipality of Clarington this 13t" day of March 2006.
Dav Crome , M.C.I.P., R.P.P. 40 Temperance Street
Director of Planning Services Bowmanville, Ontario
Municipality of Clarington L1C 3A6
501
m
c
R
O
m
V
Q
C
0
J
m
a
0
a
W ti
O ~
~ W 2
O ~ =Y
a
o~
c ~ °~°
aj c
m m e0
N C7
N J
W8'8£ M Nd£ ~~£ 08 6 N
O N
O ~
r r
~ ~
,~ ~
r ~
r
r
J -
~. O
J O
J
~ O
J
0 0
T r
Z Z
W8'8£ M w00 ,9Z o8l N
~.
J
C
m
E
a
0
m
0
0
.a
C
O
V
m
c
O
1~3~1S NNdW
~ CORPORATION OF THE PUBLIC MEETING
~~ r~ ~ REPORT ~~ PSD-045-06
Cu MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 1664312-
Leading th.e Way NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING ONTARIO INCORPORATED
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BY: 1664312 ONTARIO INCORPORATED
AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE ZONING BY-LAW 84-63
TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington will consider a proposed Zoning
By-law Amendment, under Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended.
APPLICATION DETAILS
The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment submitted by Joan Kimball and Jim Stephen would permit the.
conversion of the single detached dwelling into an eating establishment on the ground floor only and a reduction in
the parking standards.
The subject property is located within Part Lot 28, Concession 1, former Village of Newcastle, at 57 Mill Street
South, as shown on reverse.
Planning File Nos.: ZBA 2006-0004 and SPA 2006-0005
PUBLIC MEETING
The Municipality of Clarington will hold a ,public meeting to provide interested parties the opportunity to make
comments, identify issues and provide additional information relative to the proposed development. The public
meeting will be held on:
DATE: Monday, April 24, 2006
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers, 2"d Floor, Municipal Administrative Centre,
40 Temperance St., Bowmanville, Ontario
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or
in opposition to the proposal. The start time listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and
Administration Committee Meeting commences.
If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on this application you can make a deputation to Council at their meeting
on Monday, 1 May, 2006, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you wish to appear before Council, you must register
with the Clerks Department by the Wednesday noon,26 April, 2006 to have your name appear in the Agenda.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
If you wish to make a written submission or if you wish to be notified of subsequent meetings or the adoption of the
proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, you must submit a written request to the Clerk's Department, 2"d Floor, 40
Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6.
Additional information relating to the proposal is available for inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the
Planning Services Department, 3`d Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1 C 3A6, or by calling
Dian Jacobs at (905) 623-3379 extension 211 or by a-mail at djacobs@clarington.net.
APPEAL
If a person or public body that files a notice of appeal of a decision for the proposed Zoning By-taw Amendment to
the Ontario Municipal Board does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or does not make written
submissions before the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is approved, the Ontario Municipal Board may
dismiss all or part of the appeal.
Dated at the Municipality of Clarington this
D id Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning Services
Municipality of Clarington
16th day of March 2006.
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1 C 3A6
503
'~
~+
o ~ F ~
a` z Hlnos 'ts a3nvv~e Z O
~ W a
3 ~
o
z Z ~' "' w et z o m ~ c
d " y N v~i O W ~~ O
~ ~oa •o3a Hlnos ~ a ~ m ~
r ~ 3 ~~ O Q
W 3 F N~ N C N
3
W r
J ~ v~i c~nls o ~anH~ m ~ a 0' ~
~' ~ ~ Z ~ N~ ~~ ~
y ~ O W Z N !'
W V O
'1S NIMO'1V8 N
W
3w
~ c E ~° ~ w
w~~~ ~ ~_ N
~ tV .~ Q
t O C m
~ H C W
~ c '~c m ~ .
W
vii '~ oD N
~ ~feNUileM
Q D. 4~d N
d But~s~C3 J
' W
i t
H1f10S 13~2~1S ~~IW
504
PUBLIC MEETING
~ CORPORATION OF THE REPORT ~~ pSD-046-06
~~ ~ MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON DUNBURY DEVELOPMENTS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING (GREEN) LTD.
Leadin the Wa
I DEVEL~PMEI~T APPLICATIONS BY: DUNBURY DEVELOPMENTS (GREEN) LTD.
APPLICATIONS TO AMEND THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW
TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington will consider a proposed Official Plan
Amendment and a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment under Sections 17 and 34 respectively of the Planning Act, 1990, as
amended.
APPLICATION DETAILS
The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment submitted by Dunbury Development (Green) Ltd.
would permit the development of a 6 storey residential building containing 124 units, by increasing the density from 100 units
per net hectare to 190 units per net hectare and rezoning the lands from Agricultural (A) to allow the proposed use.
The subject property is located in Part Lot 17, Concession 1, former Township of Darlington, 2349 Highway 2, Bowmanville as
shown on reverse.
Planning File Nos.: COPA2006-0001, ZBA2006-0007
PUBLIC MEETING
The Municipality of Clarington will hold a public meeting to provide interested parties the opportunity to make comments
identify issues and provide additional information relative to the proposed development. The public meeting will be held on:
DATE: Monday, April 24th, 2006
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers, 2"d Floor, Municipal Administrative Centre,
40 Temperance St., Bowmanville, Ontario
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or in opposition
to the proposal. The start time listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and Administration Committee
Meeting commences.
If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on this application you can make a deputation to Council at their meeting on
Monday May 1, 2006, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you wish to appear before Council, you must register with the
Clerks Department by the Wednesday noon, April 26th, 2006 to have your name appear in the Agenda.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
If you wish to make a written submission or ff you wish to be notified of subsequent meetings or the adoption of the proposed
Official Plan Amendment and approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment, you must submit a written request to the Clerk's
Department, 2nd Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1 C 3A6.
An Official Plan Amendment adopted by the Municipality of Clarington is forwarded to the Region of Durham for approval,
unless it is determined during the review process that the Amendment is exempt from Regional approval. For an exempt
Amendment, the decision to adopt by Clarington Council becomes final, subject to any appeal during the statutory appeal
period.
Additional information relating to the proposal is available for inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the Planning
Services Department, 3ni Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1 C 3A6, or by calling Susan Ashton at (905)
623-3379 extension 218 or by a-mail at sashton(a.clarington.net
APPEAL
If a person or public body that files a notice of appeal of a decision for the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or does not make written
submissions before the proposed Official Plan Amendment is adopted or the Zoning By-law Amendment are approved, the
Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal. ~~~ //~~
Date t the Municipality of Clarington this day of ~"(,O,.c.~.- , 2006.
Da 'd Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. 40 Temperance Street
Director of Planning Services Bowmanville, Ontario
Municipality of Clarington L1C 3A6
~n~
^, f10B NQL'MW1J 'M18 NOLMlP(I1J
> (I ~ \ ~~~. ~~ Z m c
E ~ ~ __ I I y w ~ m
c ~ ~~,~ - ~ ~ i t ~ c Z o~ o
m a I I I ti c W o E c
~ II I I ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ a
otl ~ E
0 0~ N a c a
~ ~a~ ~~
Q~ Q v Q~ c
~~ ~
~ ~ ~` ~ N~ a0~0 ~ d
N
c. ~~ Q Z ~ N G
o ,~ ® Z ~
a` ,~ O c m
'91D arm AOIIK ~ J33lLLS UNOh.fM ~ •~
_~ O
R O A D ALLOWANCE B E T W E E N L O T S 1 6 AND 1 7
(aro~w~ ~s atm~ rto~o)
rw an:-am7 s
~~
E f tf
~°' ~
M11T'10'11 3m f
/ 1~i
o~
~.~ . I , ,
j ~
E'~~~ ~ ~
8l ~ ~'
~ ~ ~ ', !! /
~. ~ = ~ 1
_ ~ ~ ~r
N ~ r '~~ / /
2 i ~ /
~ t: ~ ~- !
~ ~ i
~. ~ ~ 1 e g 4
= t 0 f I
~ - ~ ~ ~ ,• f
~ ~ ~9
/ PART ~ 1
"~
/ ~ ~~ PLAN i0R=2242
/ e
/~ I inra~ol O~ u~m .o ~ ~•
~ Q~
~ d ~
~t
~ ~~i ~ ~
~ o
~~~ -' ~~ ~
~ 506
•
arm. n
Leading the Way
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
PUBLIC MEETING
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: Monday, April 24, 2006
Report #: PSD-044-06 File #'s: ZBA 2006-0006 By-law #:
Subject: ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT AND REMOVAL OF PART LOT CONTROL TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS
APPLICANT: CONDOR DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to
Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-044-06 be received;
2. THAT provided that no significant issues are raised at the public meeting, the application be
approved in principle to allow development of four (4) residential lots, subject to the conditions
contained in Attachment 2 and the applicant entering into a development agreement with the
Municipality of Clarington;
3. THAT the Zoning By-law Amendment be forwarded to Council at such time as the development
agreement has been executed;
4. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into a development agreement for the
development of the subject lands; and
5. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-044-06 and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
~- ~~,~.
Submitted by. Reviewed by:
Da J. Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Franklin Wu,
Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer
BR/CP/sh/df
18 April 2006
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
601
REPORT NO.: PSD-044-06 PAGE 2
1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1 Owner: Condor Developments Ltd.
1.2 Applicant: Armstrong Harrison Associates
1.3 Rezoning: From "Agricultural (A) Zone" to an appropriate zone to permit the
creation of four (4) residential lots.
1.4 Area: 0.199 ha (0.49 acres)
1.5 Location: The area subject to the rezoning is located on two properties on the
east side of Mann Street, between 22 and 32 Mann Street, being
Part of Lot 9, Concession 2, former Town of Bowmanville (see
Attachment 1).
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 On January 31, 2006, the Planning Services Department received an application from
Armstrong Harrison Associates, on behalf of Condor Developments Ltd., to rezone the
above area to permit the development of 4 residential lots.
2.2 The same day an application was also received from Armstrong Harrison Associates
requesting the removal of Part Lot Control (ZBA 2006-0005) with respect to Lots 17 and
19 in Block "A" in Plan H50077 (Attachment 1) (the "Porter and Bradshaw Plan"). The
Porter and Bradshaw Plan was originally registered in the Durham County Registry
Office on October 3, 1856. Registration of this Plan of Subdivision was certified by the
Land Registrar in the (Whitby) Land Registry Office on January 18, 1994.
3.0 LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES
3.1 The subject lands consist of two vacant properties, which are flat and vacant, owned by
Condor Developments Ltd.
3.2 The surrounding land uses (north, south, east and west) are all low density residential.
4.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS
4.1 Public Notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject
property and a public notice sign was installed at the centre of the properties' Mann
Street frontage.
4.2 The Planning Services Department has received no inquires.
602
REPORT NO.: PSD-044-06
PAGE 3
5.0 OFFICIAL PLAN CONFORMITY
5.1 The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject property as Living Area and
the application conforms.
5.2 The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject property as Urban Residential (Low
Density) and the application conforms.
6.0 ZONING BY-LAW COMPLIANCE
6.1 Within Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63 of the former Town of Newcastle, all of the
subject lands are zoned "Agricultural (A)". The proposed development does not comply
with the "Agricultural (A)" zoning, hence, this rezoning application.
7.0 AGENCY COMMENTS
7.1 The Planning Service Department circulated the rezoning application to a limited number
of agencies and municipal departments for comment.
7.2 Engineering Services Department advised they had no objection to the development of
four (4) residential lots subject to their comments being addressed financially and
otherwise. This includes addressing lot grading and drainage; street trees, service
connections; driveways; performance guarantees ;and agreements.
7.3 Emergency and Fire Services Department offered no objection to the proposal;
7.4 Veridian Connections had no objections subject to conditions.
7.5 Comments remain outstanding from Durham Region Works and Planning Departments,
as well as CLOC.
8.0 STAFF COMMENTS
8.1 The applicant proposes to develop the subject lands on the east side of Mann Street for
four (4) dwellings. The proposed semi/link lots are consistent with the dwelling type
found for almost all of Mann Street including the abutting lots to the north and south.
The same can be said for the west side of Mann Street also.
8.2 Staff has no objection in principle to the proposed rezoning and lot creation. The
applicant is proposing to create the lots through Part Lot Control as opposed to consent
or plan of subdivision. Prior to bringing forward a recommendation report or zoning
bylaw amendment the applicant's obligations with the respect to this development must
be satisfied. An agreement containing all conditions of approval, as typically contained
in draft approved plans of subdivision or consents must be executed by the Owner
Attachment 2 contains a list of conditions that need to be addressed..
603
REPORT NO.: PSD-044-06
PAGE 4
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Provided that there are no significant issues raised at the public meeting, it is
recommended that the application be approved in principle. The zoning by-law would
be forwarded to Council at such time as the owner has entered into a development
agreement with the Municipality.
A further report will be presented on the application for lifting of part-lot control when
details on the proposed lots have been finalized.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -Site Location Key Map and Property Plan
Attachment 2 -Conditions to be satisfied
Attachment 3 -Authorization for Agreement
List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision:
Ron O'Connor
Ronald St. C. Armstrong
604
Httacnment ~
.. 3nN3ntl sNatl3w To Rep ort PSD-044-06
°'
~
~
~
~
o ,~
o ~ ~ ;~
m ~ ~
_ ~
v ~
ON o
z
¢
H
Z ~
W o ~
i
C
~ EDGERS ~
w ~
o o
~ O
3
m
W
U ~
s Z
Z Z
s
~' ~
~
_
O ~
m .15 MtlHSa3N ~ o
W a
O O ~p
O Z=
W a
a s
~
a Z
o O
O C O
S
`
a Q
~
0
1NdNd3~3 '15 MVH atlas ~
w m
Q
0
N ~ 1"' O
~
~
J 133a1s
~
NNtlW ~
"
~
~ ~ .o
~.. _ ~
C
~ pl. ~
zP~N~E o
m ~ O
W 3Naa
~
n m
N ~ ~
ti
~ O
V
m
O. v 17 a3H N ~
w Z ~
L
V
a
~ x
a~
~~ ,~ w
~ OS
~ ~
~
~ W ~
o W
~ Z
O J
~
3
a~ S
F °'a z ~
~ _ ~ N O
W~
~ia~r s
31tlJ AlION3H =
W8'8£ M „ £ ,~£ a8 6 N
E E
°o
r:
~ r:
~
~ ~ ti ~
r r r
~- o ~- ~-- o ~-
`~
-~ J J ~ J
o
~
~
z z
w8'8£ M „00 ,9Z o8 6 N
13 ~2~1S N Nb~W
605
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-044-06
CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO REZONING
Prior to forwarding a Zoning By-law to Council the following conditions must be fulfilled by the
owner/applicant:
1) provide two copies of the registered reference plan, as approved by the Municipality
of Clarington;
2) A Lot Grading Plan, signed, sealed and dated by a Professional Engineer, is to be
provided to the Engineering Services Department and is to be satisfactory to the
Director of said department;
3) A Servicing Plan, signed, sealed and dated by a Professional Engineer, is to be
provided to the Engineering Services Department and is to be satisfactory to the
Director of said department;
4) A Grading and Drainage Deposit in the amount of $4,000.00 is to be made and this
deposit will be refunded to the owner/applicant when all grading and drainage work
is completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services;
5) Enter into a development agreement with the Municipality of Clarington which
includes all requirements of the Engineering Services Department regarding the
engineering and construction of all internal and external works and services related
to this proposal, and pay to the Municipality of Clarington, all legal costs and fees
associated with the preparation of the agreement;
6) Pay to the Municipality of Clarington, the required fee for registration of the above-
mentioned development agreement, as amended from time to time, and currently
$300.75;
7) A performance guarantee estimate for any external works deemed necessary by the
Director of Engineering Services to facilitate this development. The required
estimate shall include the works listed below which form a connection to the
development. The owner/applicant's engineer is responsible for providing this
estimate;
i) Entrance Construction,
ii) Street Trees (4, planted trees must conform to Municipal standards), and
iii) Storm Sewer Servicing;
A performance guarantee equal to the approved estimate shall be provided;
8) A Road Damage Deposit in the amount of $2,000.00 is to be made and this deposit
will be refunded to the owner/applicant when all construction has been completed
and all road restoration has been completed. Any final decision to release the Road
Damage Deposit to the owner/applicant shall be made solely at the discretion of the
Director of Engineering Services;
606
9) An appropriate cash contribution in lieu of the normal parkland dedication is to be
made;
10) Meet all the requirements of the Municipality of Clarington, financial or otherwise;
11) Pay to the Municipality of Clarington the appropriate lot development charge, as
amended from time to time, for each of the new lots created, at the time of building
permit issuance;
12) Ensure the proposed lots are given appropriate municipal street address numbers
and the applicant is responsible for the cost of any municipal address numbering
which may be necessary as a result of these applications;
13) Ensure that any new lots created through removal of part lot control comply with the
applicable provisions of Zoning by-law 84-63;
14) Satisfy the Durham Regional Works Department, financial and/or otherwise; and
15) Satisfy Central Lake Ontario Conservation, financially and/or otherwise.
607
Attachment 3
To Report PSD-044-06
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 2006
being a By-law to authorize entering into an agreement with the Owners of lands subject
to Part Lot Control Application ZBA 2006-0005 and any Mortgagee who has an interest
in the said Lands, and the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington in respect of
Part Lot Control Application ZBA 2006-0005
WHEREAS the Council authorizes the execution of a development agreement with the Owner;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and seal with the Corporation's seal, an
agreement between the Owners of the lands subject to Part Lot Control Application ZBA
2006-0005; and.
2. That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to accept, on behalf. of the Corporation
of the Municipality, the said conveyances of lands required pursuant to the aforesaid
Agreement.
BY-LAW read a first time this day of 2006
BY-LAW read a second time this day of 2006
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 2006
John Mutton, Mayor
Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk
608
•
ar.~. n
Leading the way
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
PUBLIC MEETING
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: Monday, April 24, 2006
Report #: PSD-045-06 File #: ZBA2006-0004 By-law #:
and SPA 2006-0005
Subject: PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT A RESTAURANT
WITH REDUCED PARKING STANDARDS - 57 MILL STREET SOUTH,
NEWCASTLE VILLAGE
APPLICANT: 1664312 ONTARIO INCORPORATED
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-045-06 be received;
2. THAT provided that no significant issues are raised at the public meeting, the
application submitted by 1664312 Ontario Incorporated be APPROVED
and that the attached Zoning By-law Amendment be forwarded to Council for adoption;
and,
3. THAT the interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
Submitted by:
Da ~ J. Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning Services
DJ/CS/DJC/df/sh
18 April 2006
Reviewed b : ~~ `~~~ -- ~~~n,
Y
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
609
REPORT NO.: PSD-045-06 PAGE 2
1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1 Applicant: 1664312 Ontario Incorporated
1.2 Rezoning: From Urban Residential Type Two (R2) Zone to General Commercial
Exception (C1-49) Zone to permit the conversion of the single detached
dwelling into an eating establishment on the ground floor only and a
reduction in the parking standards.
1.3 Location: 57 Mill Street South, Newcastle, located on the north-eastern corner of
Emily Street East and Mill Street South.
1.4 Site Area: 0.07 hectares (7535 ft.2)
1.5 Application Received: February 10, 2006
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The intention is to convert the building into a restaurant on the main floor only with a
publicly accessible area of 50m2. The 2"d floor is to be used for restaurant related
storage that would not be accessible to the public, except for a second washroom for
men.
2.2 Following further deliberations between the applicant, the owners and Planning Staff
regarding certain discrepancies between the submitted site plan and the application,
specifically with regard to parking requirements and floor area information, the applicant
submitted a revised site plan. A copy of the revised site plan is contained in Attachment
1.
2.3 Based on the revised site plan, the reduction of parking on site entails a shortfall of 2
parking spaces from the required 7 spaces. The applicant has informed staff that they
are not planning any changes to the exterior of the building; rather they make
improvements in keeping with the historic character of both the building and the
neighbourhood.
3.0 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
3.1 The proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63 is consistent with the Provincial
Policy Statement by enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and main streets.
4.0 OFFICIAL PLAN
4.1 Regional Official Plan
The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands "Main Central Area".
Eating establishments and residential uses as components of a mixed use may be
610
REPORT NO.: PSD-045-06
PAGE 3
permitted within the Main Central Area. This proposal is thus consistent with the
Regional Official Plan.
4.2 Clarington Official Plan Policies
4.2.1 The subject lands are in the Main Central Area and designated "Mixed Use Area" within
the Newcastle Village Main Central Area Secondary Plan. This designation permits
retail, personal service and office uses, mixed use buildings, community facilities, home-
based occupation uses as well as residential uses. The definition of "Retail Uses"
encompasses a restaurant use. This application therefore conforms to the Clarington
Official Plan.
4.2.2 This development is subject to the following urban design policies as contained in the
Newcastle Village Main Central Area Secondary Plan:
^ any parking developed on lands abutting Emily Street or at other locations where
parking areas are sited across the road from residential uses, will incorporate a high
quality landscape strip including a low wall and street trees to provide a sense of
enclosure to the street and screen the parking areas.
^ Any facade improvement will complement the historic character of the downtown
by using similar materials and styles;
^ Signage will be appropriate in scale, placement and colour requiring adoption of
standard corporate signage to the character of the local area.
4.2.3 This development is also subject to the following urban design principles contained in
the Official Plan:
^ the provision of direct pedestrian street access to buildings in each development,
wherever possible;
^ land use compatibility between commercial and residential buildings shall be
achieved through appropriate building siting, design and landscape treatment;
^ high quality landscape treatment shall be provided;
^ building form and siting shall minimize the impacts of noise, wind and shadows and
shall enhance views of landmark buildings, parks and open space;
^ refuse collection areas will be internal to buildings;
^ loading areas and refuse collection areas shall be unobtrusive and screened where
necessary and shall generally be located at the side or rear of the building;
^ common vehicular access and internal circulation including service lanes connecting
abutting properties should be provided where possible.
4.2.4 The Newcastle Main Central Area was also the subject of the recent Commercial Policy
Review that culminated in Amendments 43 and 44 to the Clarington Official Plan.
These amendments, although they have not taken effect, have no major implication on
the subject property except that the main building has been identified as a "Heritage
building" in the Newcastle Village Centre Secondary Plan.
611
REPORT NO.: PSD-045-06
PAGE 4
5.0 ZONING BY-LAW
5.1 The property is designated as "Urban Residential Type Two (R2)" which does not
permit the proposed restaurant. To permit the proposed development a rezoning
application was submitted for consideration.
5.2 The parking requirements for a restaurant are 1 parking space for every 7m2 of the total
floor area accessible to the public. A total of 7 parking spaces are thus required on
site. The .proposed site plan only includes five parking spaces, which includes 1
handicapped parking space and 1 garage parking space.
6.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES
6.1 The application site includes:
A single detached dwelling with accessory building is located on the subject
property. The principle building is a 2 storey brick building with a porch facing
Mill Street. The principle building is of typical Edwardian Classicism style and
has been identified as a "Heritage Merit" structure.
• A 1 storey frame addition (vinyl siding) of approximately 20 m2 on the north side
of the principal building and a single storey garage (also vinyl siding) of
approximately 40 m2 on the northern portion of the property have been added
later onto the property. A small storage structure of approximately 6 m2 is
located in the north-eastern corner, behind the garage.
• A vehicular entrance (6 m wide) to the site is off Mill Street.
Except for a small tree, a narrow flower bed along Mill Street and foundation
planting, the site possesses no prominent landscape features.
612
REPORT NO.: PSD-045-06
PAGE 5
6.2 The surrounding land uses:
^ The area to the north and north-west, facing King Avenue, consist of a mixture of
shops, offices, eating establishments and residential uses that are housed in single
or 2 storey buildings which, in spite of a few additions, have retained their special
historical character. Parking for these businesses is found at the rear of the
buildings. A parking lot of a hardware store is located to the north-west, diagonally.
across Mill Street. The sites immediately north and adjacent to the application site
are vacant (except for two small storage structures of approximately 6m2 each), as
well as the site to the north-north-east.
^ The area to the east, west and south is predominantly low density residential and
consists of a mixture of single and 2 storey dwellings. The housing stock in the area
exhibits little change in the face of the changing urban environment, thus the reason
why a number of houses on Emily Street have been identified as heritage buildings.
^ The dwelling house to the immediate east is approximately 21 m away: the
remainder of the site between the proposed restaurant and the said dwelling house
lies vacant.
^ Newcastle United Church is located southwest, across the Emily Street/Mill Street
intersection.
^ To summarise, the surrounding area consists of a partially developed mixed use
component north of the site and a predominantly low density residential component
to the south, east and west of the site. A common characteristic of the area is the
613
Proposed Redevelopment Site
REPORT NO.: PSD-045-06
PAGE 6
rich diversity of historical buildings. Any redevelopment within the area should blend
in with and respect the historical character of the area.
7.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSION
7.1 Public notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject
property and a public meeting notice was installed on the property.
7.2 As of the writing of this report, two (2) comments/inquiries were received from the
public. Their comments/inquiries can be summarized as follows:
^ Concern that the reduction in parking and the development of similar uses on the
northern side of Emily Street could result in parking to spill over into Emily Street and
pose a safety risk to residents.
^ The question was posed whether Council could consider the installation of "no
parking" signs along the subject section of Emily Street.
A letter was also received from a member of the public in support of the rezoning
application, stating that Newcastle needs such a type of business and that the reduction
of parking should not be a problem because much of the parking would be outside
normal business hours.
614
Surrounding uses along Emily Street
REPORT NO.: PSD-045-06
PAGE 7
8.0 AGENCY COMMENTS
8.1 The Region confirmed the application's compliance with the Regional Official Plan and
offered the following comments with regard to transportation and access:
"This section of Mill Street is designated as a Type "B" Arterial Road in the
Durham Regional Official Plan and has aRight-of-Way (ROW) width requirement
of 20 to 26 metres in the Clarington Official Plan. Mill Street is tentatively
scheduled for reconstruction in 2007 where it will be widened from 2 to 3 lanes
within the existing 20 metre ROW. Part of the reconstruction will remove the
existing on-street parking. A ROW widening will be required should on-street
parking be necessary to accommodate the subject property."
The rest of their comments pertain to technical aspects that could be addressed through
the site plan process.
8.2 Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority has no objection to the rezoning.
8.3 Veridian has no objection to the rezoning but state that existing service to the building
may be inadequate.
8.4 The Accessibility Advisory Committee has raised certain concerns regarding access for
the handicapped inside and outside the proposed restaurant. These issues can be dealt
with through the Site Plan process.
8.5 The Clarington Engineering Services Department requested that the parking
requirements for this development be clarified and indicated that it does not endorse
any reduction in the normal parking requirement.
9.0 STAFF COMMENTS
9.1 There are 3 key issues that need consideration, namely:
^ The character of the area;
^ The character and scale of the intended use;
^ Parking requirements.
9.2 The Character of the Area
9.2.1 As already mentioned in paragraph 4.2.1 of this report, the application site is located
within the Newcastle Main Central Area and in terms of the Secondary Plan it is
designated "Mixed Use". This application is clearly the fore-runner in starting the
implementation of the approved planning framework in this part of the Main Central
Area along Emily Street.
615
REPORT NO.: PSD-045-06
PAGE 8
9.2.2 Although the surrounding area is still predominantly low density residential, the need
exists to introduce uses north of Emily Street that would assist in the creation of a
smoother transition between the retail area along King Avenue and the low density
residential uses to the south of Emily Street. It would be desirable to introduce the type
and scale of uses in the designated mixed use area that would respect the character
and amenity of the established residential area south of Emily Street, while at the same
time defining the mixed use transition area.
9.2.3 The redevelopment of the designated mixed use zone will have an impact on the local
economy in that more jobs will be created, services provided for Newcastle residents
and the economic base of the town is further diversified, thus strengthening the
sustainability of the local economy.
9.2.4 As already mentioned, a number of buildings on Emily Street are heritage buildings.
Any redevelopment within the area should blend in with and be compatible with the
historical character of the area.
9.2.5 Another factor that defines the character of the area is Mill Street (Regional Road 17),
that runs past the application site. This road carries a significant amount of traffic. It is
anticipated that the north-south movement of traffic along this road will increase
significantly as the northern and southern parts of Newcastle get developed. The
Region therefore plans to widen the road in the near future.
9.3 The Character and Scale of the Intended Use
9.3.1 A restaurant, if limited in scale, can be an example of a "low key" use that can be
successfully introduced within the mixed use zone between Emily Street and King
Avenue. It is one type of use that can reuse a heritage building successfully.
9.3.2 Since the applicant already indicated that they are not planning any changes to the
exterior of the building, but rather making improvements in keeping with the historic
character of both the building and the neighbourhood, the physical impact of the change
of land use on the surrounding area will be minimal or none.
9.3.3 The proposal does not encompass adrive-in or drive-through facility and it is not a
bar/tavern. A slight increase in noise levels in the immediate area around the property
is anticipated but would most probably be restricted to lunch hour and dinner time and
would not be perceptible given the noise of background traffic.
9.3.4 The main entrance to the existing building and the proposed restaurant would be off
Mill Street, thus reducing any negative impact on the residential amenity along Emily
Street.
9.3.5 Since the hours of operations may extend late into the evening, and in view of the site's
proximity to residential land uses, aspects such as landscape screening, .screening of
parking areas and unsightly utilities (e.g. waste receptacle), noise attenuation and the
provision of adequate parking will have to be considered in the redevelopment of the
site. Mitigating measures such as the provision of effective landscape screening along
616
REPORT NO.: PSD-045-06
PAGE 9
southern street frontage, prohibiting on-street customer parking on Emily Street, may be
imposed as to ensure maximum compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
9.4 Parking Requirements
9.4.1 The revised site plan reflects a total of 4 (four) outdoor parking spaces on site, of which
one is for the physically handicapped, plus one enclosed parking space (within the
garage). In terms of the Zoning By-law, the garage parking space is to be included in
the parking calculation which leaves a shortfall of 2 parking spaces on site.
9.4.2 Visits to a restaurant are generally infrequent with peaks around lunch and dinner, and
are generally not associated with constant high traffic volumes. The amount of traffic to
and from the proposed restaurant site during the peak hours depends also upon other
factors such as the size of the venue. Although the publicly accessible space of the
restaurant is small (50m2), it is anticipated that from time to time, visitor parking may
spill over into the street.
9.4.3 There is on-street parking for 3 vehicles on Mill Street, in front of the proposed
development, as well as a couple of on-street parking spaces on the other side of Mill
Street, with a 2 hour parking restriction. There is also additional on-street parking on
King Avenue, within easy walking distance from the site. On-street parking may not be
considered in the calculation of required on-site parking, but it would fulfil the purpose of
overflow parking.
9.4.4 Many of the businesses in the central core (along King Avenue) close in the early
evening and additional on-street parking may then become available to other uses
within the village centre that have prolonged hours of operation, such as a restaurant.
However, human nature would tend to lead patrons to park on Emily Street due to its
closer proximity to the restaurant.
9.4.5 There are other uses in the area such
certain extent rely on on-street parking.
anticipate some on-street parking.
as the Newcastle United Church which to a
It would not be out of character for the area to
9.4.6 Planning staff do not have any objection to the reduced parking for this limited scale use
recognizing that some parking would occur on Emily Street and Mill Street. Most of this
parking will be for relatively short intervals. In the event that parking becomes more of a
concern than anticipated Council could implement some mitigation measures such as
prohibition of on-street parking on the south side of Emily Street.
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
10.1 It is concluded that there is sufficient merit, from a planning point of view, to support the
rezoning application to permit a restaurant with reduced parking standard within a
heritage building. The site plan process will be utilized to "maximize" the compatibility of
the new use with the surrounding land uses e.g. landscape screening, lighting and
screening of parking areas. Additional on-site landscaping will also be required,
617
REPORT NO.: PSD-045-06
PAGE 10
including new trees on the Mill Street frontage. Based on the comments in the report, it
is respectfully recommended that the rezoning application be APPROVED.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Key Map
Attachment 2 - By-law Amendment
618
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-045-06
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-045-06
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 2006-
being a by-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law
for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable
to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the former Town of Newcastle in accordance with
application ZBA 2006-0004 to permit the conversion of an existing dwelling into an eating
establishment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Section 16.5 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS -GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C1) ZONE" is
hereby amended by adding thereto the following new Special Exception 16.5.49 as
follows:
"16.5.49 GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXCEPTION (C1-49) ZONE
Notwithstanding Sections 3.16 a), 16.1 and 16.3 a, b, those lands zoned C1-49 on the
Schedules to this By-law may only be used for an eating establishment without a drive
through facility.
a) Regulations
i) Yard Requirements (minimum)
a) Front Yard 7.5 metres
b) Rear Yard 19.5 metres
c) Exterior Side Yard 4.5 metres
ii) Lot coverage (max) 50%
iii) Outdoor Parking (minimum} 4 spaces
iv) Publicly Accessible Area of eating establishment (maximum) 50 square metres
2. Schedule "5" to By-law 84-63 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the
zone designation from: "Urban Residential Type Two (R2)", to "General Commercial
Exception (C1-49)", as illustrated on the attached Schedule "A" hereto.
3. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the
provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act.
BY-LAW read a first time this day of 2006
BY-LAW read a second time this
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this
day of 2006
day of 2006
John Mutton, Mayor
Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk
620
This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2006-
,
passed this day of , 2006 A.D.
Eps6ng
Waste
Endosure
= 4
I.IJ ~
W
•
~
J
J_
EMILY STREET EAST
® Zoning Change From "R2" To "C1-49"
John Mutton, Mayor Patti L Barrie, Municipal Clerk
KING AV ENUE WEST KING AVENUE EA T
x
~-
o
F
EMILY ST W ST E
. . . .
N W
W ~
~
~
~ ~
CAROL
Z INE ST . W. ST. E . o ~
N
~ ~ W
~
o ~ a
m w U
c.~
w
~ m
EDWARD ST. E.
W.
S
T EDWARD
,
r_
~
~
I ~ I I ~~ ~ ~ I I I
Newcastle
621
•
arm n
Leading the way
File #: COPA2006-0001 By-law #:
ZBA2006-0007
PLANNING SERVICES
PUBLIC MEETING
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: Monday, April 24, 2006
Report #: PSD-046-06
Subject: APPLICATIONS TO AMEND THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN AND
ZONING BY-LAW TO PERMIT AN INCREASE IN DENSITY FOR A SIX
STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING
APPLICANT: DUNBURY DEVELOPMENT (GREEN) LTD.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-046-06 be received;
2. THAT the applications to amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law 84-63
submitted by Dunbury Development (Green) Ltd. be referred back to staff for further
processing and the preparation of a subsequent report; and,
3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of
Council's decision.
Submitted by:
d J. Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning Services
SA/CP/DJC/sh/df
April 18, 2006
REPORT
Reviewed by: ~~'~ ~J ~ti
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
622
REPORT NO.: PSD-046-06
PAGE 2
1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1 Applicant/Owner: Dunbury Development (Green) Ltd.
1.2 Official Plan Amendment:
To permit the development of a 6 storey residential building
containing 124 units, by increasing the maximum density permitted
from 100 units per net hectare to 190 units per net hectare (an
increase of 58 units).
1.3 Zoning By-law Amendment:
To rezone from "Agricultural (A)" to an appropriate zone to permit
the proposed development.
1.4 Site Area: 0.6512 ha
2.0 LOCATION
2.1 The subject lands are located south of Highway 2 and west of Green Road at 2349
Highway 2 in Bowmanville. The property is contained within Part Lot 17, Concession 1,
former Township of Darlington.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 On February 17, 2006, Dunbury Developments (Green) .Ltd. submitted applications to
the Municipality of Clarington for the development an apartment building containing a
total of 124 dwelling units. A noise study, traffic study and visual impact analysis have
been requested from the applicant, but have not been received at this time.
3.2 The subject lands have been designated for higher density residential uses since 1992.
Official Plan Amendment No. 43 to the Official Plan for the former Town of Newcastle
provided for a density of 74 units per hectare. In 1996 the new Clarington Official Plan
recognized this designation with a density of 100 units per hectare.
4.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES
4.1 The subject property is currently vacant and has frontage along Highway 2 and Green
Road. The site has recently been cleared and graded and is generally flat. There are
existing low density residential dwellings located on the adjacent lots to both the west
and south.
4.2 Surrounding Uses:
North: vacant commercial designated and zoned lands
South: existing low density residential
623
REPORT NO.: PSD-046-06
PAGE 3
East: existing commercial uses, Loblaw's and Clarington Centre plaza
West: existing low density residential
5.0 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
5.1 The proposed subdivision application is within the Bowmanville settlement area and
proposes a high density development. The existing neighbourhood contains only low
and medium density development. Provincial Policy regarding settlement areas states
that there shall be a mix of densities and land uses.
6.0 OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
6.1 The lands are designated "Living Area" in the Durham Region Official Plan. Lands
designated Living Area permit the development of residential units, incorporating the
widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure.
6.2 The lands are designated "Urban Residential -High Density" in the Clarington Official
Plan. The high density policies allow for development with a net density of up to 100
units per net residential hectare with predominant housing form to include medium rise
apartments up to 6 storeys and mixed use developments. The applicant is requesting a
net density of 190 units, thus the official plan amendment has been submitted.
The site fronts on both Green Road and Highway 2 both of which are designated Type
`B' arterial roads. Access to Type `B' arterial roads is to be limited to one access every
80 metres. The application proposes a single access on Green Road.
6.3 The Clarington Official Plan contains policies to guide development of high density
residential areas. These include:
• the site is suitable in terms of size and shape to accommodate the proposed
density and building form;
• the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood in
terms of scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks, shadowing, and the location of
parking and amenity areas;
• adequate on-site parking, lighting, landscaping and amenity areas are provided;
and,
• the impact of traffic on local streets is minimized.
7.0 ZONING BY-LAW
7.1 The subject lands are currently within the "Agricultural (A) Zone". The applicant has
applied to rezone the property to permit the proposed 6 storey apartment building. Any
site specific zoning requirements will be reviewed through the concurrent site plan
process.
624
REPORT NO.: PSD-046-06
PAGE 4
8.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS
8.1 Public notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject site
and two (2) public meeting notice signs were installed facing Highway 2 and Green
Road.
8.2 To date, four (4) inquiries have been received. The inquiries were regarding the
following:
• There were some objections to any high density development being permitted
on this site;
• All felt that the development is at too high a density; and
• All were concerned about loss of privacy with the potential of people looking
into their backyard from the upper units.
9.0 AGENCY COMMENTS
9.1 At the writing of this report, comments have been received from Clarington Emergency
Services, Hydro One Networks Inc. and Bell Canada. These agencies/departments
have no objection to these applications.
9.2 The Clarington Building Division has no objection to the Official Plan and Rezoning
applications and will provide additional comment upon submission of the site plan
application when detailed drawings showing site servicing, fire routes etc, are
submitted.
9.3 Bell Canada has no objection to the application, and will send further comments at a
later date when detailed site plan drawings are submitted.
9.4 Comments remain outstanding from Clarington Engineering Services, Regional
Planning and Regional Works, Central Lake Ontario Conservation, the two school
boards, Rogers Cable and Enbridge Gas.
10.0 STAFF COMMENTS
10.1 The Clarington Official Plan provides for a high density/intensification allocation of 125
units for the Darlington Green Neighbourhood. The subject application proposes to
increase the density of the subject lands for an additional 58 residential units. Unless
there is a further revision to increase the total number of intensification units, for the
neighbourhood, this application is proposing to utilize the intensification density for the
entire neighbourhood.
10.2 The applicant has proposed an apartment style building and located all the required
resident's parking spaces below ground. With the surface area containing limited
parking the applicant is able to locate a building with a higher density on the site and still
provide adequate landscaped open space. There is some visitor parking at grade and
Staff will be working with the applicant to increase the number of these visitor spaces.
625
REPORT NO.: PSD-046-06
PAGE 5
10.3 The applicant has oriented the building to the street frontages providing an urban
character that emphasizes the intersection as a high profile design feature. The "L"
shape building leaves the south and east areas of the property as landscaped open
space maximizing the separation to the abutting residential lots. The dwelling located
west of the subject lot will be approximately 20 metres from the closest point of the new
apartment building and the dwelling located to the south will be approximately 33
metres distant.
10.4 The applicant has applied for site plan approval, and will submit more detailed drawings,
including landscape plan, lighting plan, and site servicing plan once the official plan and
zoning amendments have received approval.
11.0 CONCLUSIONS
11.1 Issues regarding density impacts and site design have been raised and agency
comments are outstanding. It is recommended that the application be referred back to
staff for further processing.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -Key Map
Attachment 2 -Proposed Amendment
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Dunbury Developments (Green) Ltd. Greg Pyatt
James MacDonald Heather Muir
E.I. Richmond Architects Ltd.
626
Attachment 1
To Keport N5u-u4b-ub
noe xo~xrtNU 'ate xauxumo -
.-.
m ~ '~ C J
' I
I ~ ;~
~ \ Z E
~
~
~
II
_ _ -
~
~
1
w
o
r-
.a
m
c m
c~
3 ~ ~,»r, ~, ~ I ~ °
m° ~ I i I I ~'~ o Z c E o f ~
,~ w ~ c
I I I I `' o m
c
o Q o ~ to a
~ ou rmeo
~
a
c N c Q
•
p .~ xauvxae ~ ~ Q V ~ ~ 0
~ Y
•
-
' ~ O
M1 ~~
~
Q ,~ N ~
V O y ~
~ N °
a
n`. z
~ vs
~
~
N ` 3
«p,~x ca
C O
1
ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWE EN LOTS 16 AND17
(a~aw ~s asni ~ aao)
rw sna-ami
,.a __ ~
a~
1 ~
E
/ ~ ~ • O • • • O I /
i
~~ ~ _
>s
~ e • • •
• t / 0
I I
/
~
/
h ~ ' /
d
2 ~
O ~_
• )
I
E , s~ ~ Q ® ~ Q~ t l
3 ~ ~ g
I ~ ~ ~ f
~ '
•
+ a _ ~~
PART 1
~
a ~K~
i PUN IQ4=2242
t
M O: SIT ~ ~ Q`
«f
r a
w Q,'
Q
f
! \~~~~\ ~;i\V\
` Z
O
'
~~
O
~'
~
~~ Z ~
z
~ ~ Q~
l f 627
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-046-06
AMENDMENT NO.
TO THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment is to exempt the subject property from
the maximum density requirement of 100 units per net hectare and
permit an increase in the density to 190 units per net hectare.
BASIS: To facilitate the development of the subject property for high density
residential uses on the basis of the Zoning By-law amendment and
Site Plan Control applications.
ACTUAL
AMENDMENT: Notwithstanding Section 9.4, "Table 9-1 Residential Density
Standards", the net density permitted shall be 190 units per hectare on
the property identified by the roll number 1817-010-020-17601 in Part
Lot 17, Concession 1, former Township of Darlington. The
developable area shall be defined in the implementing Zoning By-law.
IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan as amended,
regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this
amendment.
INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan as amended,
regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this
amendment.
628
•
arm n
Leading the Way
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: Monday, April 24, 2006
Report #: PSD-047-06 File #: PLN 33.4
By-law #:
Subject: PORT GRANBY PROJECT -UPDATE ON ENHANCED FACILITY DESIGN
AND REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-047-06 be received for information, and
2. THAT a copy of Council's decision be forwarded to all interested parties indicated in this
report.
Submitted by: ~~~-~ Reviewed b ~ `'.
a i . Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Franklin Wu,
Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer
JAS/FVDJC/df
7 April 2006
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (90523-3379 F (905)623-0830
629
REPORT NO.: PSD-047-06
PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 On March 29, 2005, Committee adopted a resolution to request the Low Level
Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) investigate the effects of installing a
double composite base liner at the new Long Term Waste Management Facility (LTWMF)
for the Port Granby Project, and to revise the Environmental Assessment Study Report
(EASR) accordingly.
1.2 On January 23, 2006, Mr. Glenn Case of the LLRWMO made a presentation to
Committee to advise that their investigation had indicated the installation of a double liner
would not appreciably improve the safety performance of the LTWMF. Mr. Case also
indicated that, as a result of a comprehensive review of the entire facility design, the
LLRWMO was recommending that the performance of the mound be enhanced through
the incorporation of a capillary drainage layer into the mound cover. Staff indicated their
support for the LLRWMO's recommendation through Report PSD-007-06, as did the
Municipal Peer Review Team (MPRT) through their peer review report.
1.3 Mr. Sarwan Sahota and Mr. John Stephenson of the South East Clarington Ratepayers
Association (SECRA) made presentations to Council on January 30, 2006 in respect of
the revised facility design for the Port Granby Project. Council referred subsequent
correspondence from the LLRWMO (February 27, 2006 Council) and Mr. Stephenson
(March 20, 2006 Council) to the Planning Services Department. A letter from Mrs. Cathy
McNeill was also received by Council on April 18, 2006 and referred to Planning.
1.4 The MPRT has prepared a revised peer review report in respect of the enhanced facility
design for the Port Granby LTWMF (see Attachment 2). This report provides more
detailed information regarding the operation of the capillary drainage layer, and explains
the MPRT's rationale for supporting the enhanced facility design as recommended by the
LLRWMO in lieu of a double base liner system. This report also provides the MPRT's
recommendations for further optimizing the performance of the enhanced mound cover.
1.5 The purpose of this staff report is to provide an overview of the MPRT's position with
respect to the design of the LTWMF, to respond to specific questions and issues raised
by both Council and residents, and to advise Council with respect to the status of the
revised EASR.
2.0 PEER REVIEW TEAM POSITION REGARDING DESIGN OF THE LTWMF
2.1 The base liner system of the LTWMF is required to deal with leachate generated during
the construction phase when precipitation will contact the waste, and in the early
operational life of the mound due to any residual moisture from construction activities.
Leachate generation after this period is expected to be negligible.
2.2 The MPRT's recommendation for a double liner system in March 2005 was based on
the uncertainty of the durability of the geomembrane components in both the cover and
liner systems, which are required to effectively minimize and contain any leachate in the
long term. This was of particular concern in the event of the failure of the geomembrane
630
REPORT NO.: PSD-047-06
PAGE 3
in the cover system, which would increase the potential for leachate generation. Under
such a scenario, the native till under the mound would have been relied on to provide
redundant containment of the leachate in order to protect the surrounding environment
should the geomembrane in the liner system also fail. Although the native till could be
expected to contain any leachate that escaped the mound, it was the MPRT's position
that any scenario that involved any contamination of the till layer was unacceptable
because of the potential for environmental contamination.
2.3 Subsequent to the LLRWMO's review of several double liner systems and the
conclusions that a second liner would not appreciably improve the performance of the
mound, the MPRT and the LLRWMO agreed that a comprehensive review of the entire
facility design was needed to assure isolation of the waste from the environment.
2.4 The enhanced facility design for the engineered mound developed by the LLRWMO as
a result of this review utilizes a capillary barrier and drainage system as part of the
cover system. This system would provide further protection from moisture contacting
the waste and would further reduce the potential for leachate generation to negligible
levels, even in the event of a failure of the geomembrane in the cover system. As well,
the capillary drainage system would be composed of natural materials, would operate
passively, and would contain instrumentation to detect moisture infiltration. The mound
cover could also be repaired if the sensors that are embedded within the capillary
drainage system detected any moisture infiltration.
2.5 To assess the appropriateness of the LLRWMO's conclusions, the MPRT reviewed
background documentation on industry experience with respect to capillary barriers, as
well as the preliminary conceptual details of the proposed cover system. The MPRT
also had technical meetings with the LLRWMO and its technical consultant to discuss
the proposed design. Based on this review, the MPRT has concluded that the enhanced
facility design .meets their expectations with regard to environmental performance. By
effectively reducing the amount of moisture contacting the waste to negligible levels,
even in the case of the degradation of the geomembrane component of the cover
system, there will be less reliance on the liner system to manage the leachate and
protect against soil and groundwater contamination.
2.6 The MPRT is satisfied that the enhanced cover design improves the overall
performance of the LTWMF and provides Clarington residents and Council with astate-
of-the-art facility and an increased level of confidence. In particular, the enhanced
design meets the key objectives the MPRT originally sought by recommending a double
liner in the original facility design - i.e. protecting the underlying till, preventing potential
leachate contamination of groundwater, and providing redundancy in the facility design.
As such, it is the opinion of the MPRT that, with the enhanced facility design, a double
liner system is no longer necessary.
2.7 A full discussion of the MPRT's review of the enhanced facility design is provided in
Section 2 of the MPRT's report. The MPRT has also made a number of
recommendations to the LLRWMO on ways in which the capillary barrier concept could
be enhanced. The LLRWMO is actively studying these recommendations and has
631
REPORT NO.: PSD-047-06
PAGE 4
already incorporated a number of these recommendations into the facility design. The
MPRT's recommendations are set out in Section 3 of their report.
3.0 RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY COUNCIL AND RESIDENTS
3.1 Possible tearing of base liner during construction
3.1.1 The single base liner system for the LTWMF will consist of the following three
components (from top to bottom):
• 0.5 m thick sand layer which houses the leachate collection system and which
provides a permeable media through which the leachate will preferentially travel;
• 0.002 m thick High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane to provide a bottom
to the sand layer and to assist in the collection of the leachate;
• 0.75 m (2.4 ft) thick compacted clay liner (CCL) to adsorb and further repel any
leachate that may migrate through the two previous component layers.
This single three component base liner system would be 1.25 m (4.1 ft) thick, with each
component performing a specific function and providing a redundant level of protection.
3.1.2 The concern noted by Council and residents relates to the possible tearing of the HDPE
geomembrane during construction of the liner system and during waste placement.
There are a number of operational controls used to protect the geomembrane that have
proven to be effective over many years of experience. These include preparation of the
underlying CCL to ensure it will provide a proper base for the geomembrane, and
inspection of the geomembrane to ensure that there are no foreign objects {i.e. rocks) that
could puncture the membrane. The seams of the geomembrane are fused together to
create a watertight barrier. This fusing process is subject to stringent inspection and
quality control. Once the entire geomembrane has been installed, it is tested for leaks.
3.1.3 No machinery ever comes in direct contact with the HDPE geomembrane in the liner
system. During the installation of the liner, a 0.3 m (1 ft) cushion of sand will be placed
over the geomembrane to support the equipment. The HDPE is installed using track-
mounted equipment.
During placement of the waste, the 0.5 m (1.6 ft) thick sand leachate collection layer
will provide protection to the geomembrane. As a further precaution, the first 0.5 m lift of
waste placed over the sand layer will be select material. Trucks hauling the first few lifts
of waste into a cell will be restricted to internal temporary haul roads so that there is at
least a 1 m separation between the truck tires and the geomembrane liner. The initial lifts
of waste will be spread by a low ground pressure tracked bulldozer (35 kPa max. ground
pressure).
632
REPORT NO.: PSD-047-06
PAGE 5
The liner installation and waste placement processes will be continuously supervised to
ensure the integrity of the membranes.
3.2 Failure of a single base liner during operation of the LTWMF
3.2.1 This concern also seems to relate to the possible failure of the HDPE geomembrane
component of the three component base liner system. The base liner system of the
LTWMF is primarily required to deal with leachate created during construction, when the
waste is exposed to precipitation, and in the 5 to 10 year period following construction of
the mound when residual drainage of leachate will occur. After this period, leachate
volumes will be reduced to negligible levels -less than 3 litres per day (1 cu. m. per year)
produced from pre-existing moisture in the waste since the enhanced mound cover will
ensure that no precipitation will contact the waste.
3.2.2 Testing and field experience with HDPE geomembranes has indicated that they have a
life expectancy of several hundred years. Specifically, HDPE geomembranes are
manufactured with anti-oxidant compounds to inhibit chemical oxidation of the polymer.
Standardized chemical compatibility testing has indicated that the performance of the
HDPE geomembrane will not be compromised by exposure to chemicals in the leachate.
3.2.3 However, in the event that the geomembrane in the liner unexpectedly deteriorates, the
0.75 m thick compacted clay liner (CCL) beneath the geomembrane will act as a very
effective barrier to leachate. Since the CCL is comprised of natural materials, its function
as a barrier to the minimal volumes of leachate that will be generated will not diminish
during the life of the LTWMF.
3.2.4 The LLRWMO's review of the efficiencies of liner systems indicated that a single liner
system would contain 99.95% of the leachate, while a double liner would contain 99.99%
of leachate. Given that leakage rates for the single liner system are predicted to be
barely measurable (less than 0.01 mm per year), the 0.45% increase in leachate
containment afforded by a second liner system would not represent an improvement in
the performance of the LTWMF.
3.2.5 Even under a scenario involving a complete failure of the geomembrane in the mound
cover, the redundant protection provided within the cover would capture virtually all of the
moisture, so that less than 0.01 % of the precipitation would contact the waste. Again, this
very low rate of leachate production (less than 0.08 mm per year) is easily handled by a
single liner system, even in the event of a complete failure of the geomembrane in the
liner system. The mound cover could be repaired if sensors installed in the cover system
detect any failures, while the liner system cannot be repaired.
3.3 A double liner system was rejected because of cost
3.3.1 The single base liner system under the LTWMF is expected to cost $4.75 million. The
additional cost for the three options for doubling the liner investigated by the LLRWMO
ranged from $2.81 million to $4.75 million. The LLRWMO's analysis indicated that none
of these options would perform appreciably better than the single three component base
liner. Since no significant groundwater quality impacts are expected with the single base
633
REPORT NO.: PSD-047-06
PAGE 6
liner system, the installation of a second base liner system would not provide any
significant technical advantage. As such, the doubling of the base liner was rejected not
because of cost, but because it did not enhance the redundant level of protection.
3.3.2 The capillary drainage layer in the mound cover will be constructed using the native till
already found on the site of the future LTWMF. The soil fractions in the till (ie. gravel,
sand, silt and clay) will be separated on-site. The availability of suitable soil on-site will
preclude the need to transport the soil materials needed for the capillary barrier along
area roads. The additional cost related to the construction of the capillary drainage layer
in the mound cover is approximately $1.03 million.
3.3.3 In the opinion of both the LLRWMO and the MPRT, the proposed enhancement to the
mound cover through the incorporation of a capillary drainage layer provides a much
more cost effective and pro-active approach to environmental protection than the
construction of a double liner system. The construction of the capillary. drainage barrier in
the mound cover renders a double line system unnecessary because it reduces the
volume of leachate that the liner system would have to deal with to negligible levels. As
well, the construction of an enhanced cap would involve no increase in project-related
truck traffic and a significantly shorter increase in the duration of the Project than would
the construction of a double liner.
3.3.4 In the opinion of both the LLRWMO and the MPRT, the capillary drainage barrier provides
the redundant level of protection that the Municipality was seeking through their request
to examine a double liner system.
3.4 The Port Hope LTWMF will include a double base liner system and a capillary drainage
laver
3.4.1 The design of both the Port Granby and Port Hope LTWMFs has been tailored to address
the specific geotechnicat characteristics of each site. Given the significant differences
between the two sites, it is not appropriate to compare specific design elements.
3.4.2 The bottom of the Port Granby mound will be located between 5 to 20 m above the water
table and will be underlain by 8 to 12 m of relatively impermeable native till, which will
provide a very stable base for the mound. In contrast, the relatively porous soils found
at the Port Hope site do not provide as stable a base for the mound and the water table is
in relatively close proximity to the bottom of the mound. These characteristics necessitate
the installation of a double liner system at the Port Hope facility.
3.5 Installation of a double liner system would enhance health and safety and public
confidence in the LTWMF
3.5.1 It is the opinion of both the LLRWMO and the MPRT that the enhanced facility design,
which incorporates a capillary drainage layer into the mound cover, together with the
three component base liner system, will ensure the isolation of the waste from the
environment. The installation of a double base liner would not improve the performance
of the mound in protecting the health and safety of residents. The MPRT is satisfied that
the enhanced cover design improves the overall performance of the LTWMF and provides
634
REPORT NO.: PSD-047-06
PAGE 7
Clarington residents and Council with astate-of-the-art facility and an increased level of
confidence.
3.5.2 It is also important to note that all aspects of the Port Granby Project, including a detailed
design of the LTWMF, will be subject to rigorous review by various federal and provincial
agencies, such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), prior to the
approval of the EASR and the issuance of a construction license.
3.6 A second base liner system is needed because the waste will take a long time to d
3.6.1 After the mound is completed and the cap over the waste is constructed, leachate will
be generated from free water within the waste. Initial leachate production after the
mound is expected to be about 126 cu. m. per day (126 cu. m. per year). However, the
rate of leachate production will decline exponentially over the first few years, so that
within 10 years leachate production will reach a steady state of less than 0.003 cu. m.
per day (less than 1 cu. m. per year).
3.6.2 The waste within the mound will retain much of its original water content in tension and
this moisture will never drain out. It will also not evaporate because of the 3.5 m thick
mound cover overtop of the waste.
3.7 The use of capillary drainage lavers is not wide-spread and is only experimental
3.7.1 The MPRT undertook a review of the use of capillary barriers at other waste facilities.
This review indicated that capillary barriers are used in a number of waste sites to prevent
precipitation from contacting the waste. For example, acapillary-based barrier has been
installed and has been operational since 1994 at the Hanford Superfund radioactive
waste site in Washington State. This system has been found to operate satisfactorily in a
temperate/humid environment similar to Ontario.
3.7.2 The use of capillary barriers in hazardous landfills and for the remediation of waste sites
is increasing due to the advantages such barriers provide. Key advantages include their
ability to retain and divert water, and their constructability using natural materials and
configurations that imply longevity.
3.7.3 The MPRT's review found that the mound cover proposed by the LLRWMO for the Port
Granby LTWMF, with the capillary barrier and the HDPE geomembrane, is more robust
than most of the cover systems used at other waste sites.
A more detailed discussion of the history and use of capillary barriers is provide in Section
2.1 and Appendix A of the MPRT report.
3.8 The capillary drainage laver represents only a marginal improvement to the mound cover
3.8.1 The average annual precipitation in the Port Granby area is .820 mm. As indicated by
the following, virtually all precipitation that falls on the LTWMF will be collected and
drained away by the mound cover:
635
REPORT NO.: PSD-047-06 PAGE 8
500.2 mm (61 %) will be lost through evapo-transpiration (ie. the sum of
evaporation and transpiration by plants)
180.4 mm (22%) will be lost through runoff from the mound because of its sloped
sides; and
• 139.4 mm (17%) will infiltrate into the mound cover and be captured and drained
away by the sand drainage layer above the geomembrane.
Less than 0.01 % of the original 820 mm of precipitation (0.082 mm) is expected to
penetrate through the geomembrane in the cover. This minimal amount of moisture will
be captured by the capillary drainage layer and drained away from the waste to the
sides of the mound by capillary action. The net result is that the amount of moisture
available to reach the waste will be barely measurable.
3.8.2 In the unlikely event of a complete failure of the geomembrane in the mound cover, it is
anticipated that approximately 54 mm (7% of the incident precipitation) would leak
through the geomembrane into the capillary drainage layer. The capillary drainage
layer would drain away almost all of this moisture, again, less than 0.01 % of the original
incident precipitation (0.082 mm) would be available to contact the waste.
3.9 Double liners are commonly used in the U.S for waste storage mounds
3.9.1 Hazardous waste sites in the United States tend to use generic mound designs that rely
on double base liners. In Canada, waste facilities tend to be designed to~ address the
specific characteristics of a site. The MPRT's review of non-hazardous and hazardous
waste sites in Canada, the United States and Europe indicated that the mounds with
double liners do not have enhanced caps. For example, the LLRW site at Weldon
Springs, Missouri, which contains 1.3 million cu. m. of Thorium-230 and Uranium
contaminated waste and soils, has a double base liner, but does not have a
geomembrane or a capillary barrier in the mound cover.
3.9.2 Amore detailed description of the containment systems used at other waste sites is
provided in Appendix A of the MPRT report.
4.0 REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT
4.1 The LLRWMO has prepared a revised Draft EASR for the Port Granby Project, which
was received by Council at its meeting of April 3, 2006. A copy of the LLRWMO's letter
forms Attachment 3 to this report. In the letter, the LLRWMO indicates that Council's
objective in requesting a double liner in the new LTWMF was to increase confidence in
the long-term environmental safety of the new facility. However, the LLRWMO's
analysis indicated that the inclusion of a second base liner system did not enhance the
protective features of the mound to any significant extent, but could have a noticeable
effect on local residents through increased trucking and a longer construction period.
Further study indicated that the addition of a capillary drainage layer system to the
mound cover greatly increased the facility's ability to keep the wastes dry for the long
636
REPORT NO.: PSD-047-06
PAGE 9
term. This was found to be a much better design enhancement than incorporating a
double liner in the base of the facility.
4.2 The revised EASR is substantially the same as the document that was reviewed by the
MPRT and the public in the spring of 2005. The only substantive revisions relate to the
effects expected from the inclusion of the capillary drainage layer into the cover of the
LTWMF, and the construction of the grade separation under Lakeshore Road. As well,
some revisions have been made to reflect comments from the federal review of the
EASR for the Port Hope Project, which was submitted in April 2005.
4.3 The revised EASR is currently being reviewed by the MPRT. As well, copies of the
document have been provided to SECRA and are also available through the Clarington
Public Library. The review period will end on May 03, 2006. Given that the revised
EASR is substantially the same as the document submitted by the LLRWMO last year,
except for the changes noted above, this time period should be sufficient.
4.4 Any comments identified by the MPRT and the public during the review period will be
addressed by the LLRWMO in May. Any necessary revisions would be made to the
EASR and a final version of the EASR will be submitted to the June 5, 2006 Committee
meeting. Staff will also forward a report to the June 5, 2006 meeting with a
recommendation on whether Council should endorse the Project reflected in the EASR
as the Preferred Option for the Port Granby Project.
5.0 NEXT STEPS
5.1 Once Council endorses a Preferred Option, the LLRWMO will submit the EASR and all
other relevant documentation to the federal government for review. The following
federal and provincial agencies will be reviewing and providing comments on the EASR:
• Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
• Transport Canada
• Environment Canada
• Health Canada
• Ontario Ministry of the Environment
• Ontario Ministry of Transportation
• Ontario Ministry of Culture
• Ontario Provincial Police
5.2 Based on the experience with the Port Hope EASR, this review is expected to be quite
rigorous and detailed. The numerous technical reports prepared as part of the EA will
be scrutinized by the review agencies to ensure that the study methodologies used by
the LLRWMO and its consultants are appropriate and sufficiently comprehensive, and
that the conclusions of these studies are accurate. In particular, the design of the
LTWMF, including the single base liner system and the capillary drainage layer in the
637
REPORT NO.: PSD-047-06
PAGE 10
mound cover, will be reviewed to ensure that the storage mound will effectively isolate
the waste from the environment for several hundred years.
5.3 Once the review of the Port Granby Project EASR is completed, a draft Screening
Report will be issued by the federal authorities for review and comment. This report will
summarize the results of the federal/provincial review. Based on comments received,
the screening report will be finalized and a decision on whether to proceed with the
Project will be released by the federal government. Licensing by the CNSC will follow.
Currently, it is anticipated that the construction work related to the Port Granby Project
will commence in 2008.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Both Staff and the MPRT are pleased that the LLRWMO has worked so diligently over
the past year to address our concerns regarding the need to incorporate additional
redundancies into the design of the LTWMF for the Port Granby wastes. The MPRT
and staff are confident that the enhanced facility design, with the inclusion of the
capillary drainage layer into the mound cover and a three component base liner system,
represents a significant improvement to the design of the facility and makes the double
liner originally recommended by the MPRT technically unnecessary.
6.2 Nonetheless, Staff and the MPRT continue to be sensitive to the position expressed by
residents that a double base liner system is required at the LTWMF. Council's
endorsement of a Preferred Option for the Port Granby Project will allow the detailed
review of the LTWMF design by the federal and provincial review authorities to occur.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Glossary of Terms
Attachment 2 - Municipal Peer Review Team Report, March 2006
Attachment 3 - Letter from Glenn Case, LLRWMO, dated March 31, 2006
638
REPORT NO.: PSD-047-06
pnr.~ ~ ~
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Ms. Sharon Baillie-Mato Andrew McCreath
Mr. Glenn Case, Director Joanne McNamara
Michael Ayer & Julie Jones Office of Bev Oda, M.P.
Vito Binetti Rupert McNeill
Wayne Boucher Lorri and Stuart Munro
Ray Coakwell and Frances Brooks Tim and Laurel Nichols
Rosemary Cooper Dora Nichols
Marion and Stuart DeCoste Carole Owens
Frederic DeSourdy Jean Payne
Robert Edgar James B. Robertson
Mel Edwards Ulrich Ruegger
Wilma Entwisle Linda and Paul Ryerse
Gord and Penny Ewington Sarwan Sahota
Betty and Stephanie Formosa Barb Spencer
Paulette Gerber John Stephenson
Lorri Graham Brian and Penny Stripp
Walter Burham Ken Shrives
Frank Hart Midori Tanabe
Luanne Hill Brian Tayng
A. Karacsonyi Harvey Thompson
Susan Kinmond Rosemary Tisnovsky
Maria Kordas -Fraser Stan Tisnovsky
Jane Lawrence Julie Tutla
Eric Leeuwner Richard Walker
Gerry Mahoney and Bonnie McFarlane Mary and Harry Worrall
639
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-047-06
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
CCL Compacted Clay Liner
CNSC Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
EA Environmental Assessment
EASR Environmental Assessment Study Report
GCL Geosynthetic Clay Liner
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
LLRW Low Level Radioactive Waste
LLRWMO Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office
LTWMF Long Term Waste Management Facility
MPRT Municipal Peer Review Team
NRCAN Natural Resources Canada
SECRA South East Clarington Ratepayers Association
640
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-047-06
Peer Review of the LLRWMO's
Enhanced Facility Design for the
Port Granby Project
March 2006
Prepared for:
Municipality of Clarington
Prepared by:
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited HARD Y
364 Davenport Road STEVENSON
oronto, Ontario M5R 1 K6 AND ASSOCIATES
p: 416-944-8444
t: 1-877-267-7794
f: 416-944-0900
641
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... l
1.1 Purpose of this Report .................................................................................... 2
1.2 Background .................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Overview of the MPRT's Conclusions .......................................................... 6
Z Review of the Enhanced Facility Design ................................................................. 7
2.1 History and Use of Capillary Barriers at other Facilities ............................... 7
2.2 Components of the Capillary Barrier ............................................................. 8
2.3 How the Capillary Bamer Functions ........................................................... 11
2.4 Strengths of the Enhanced Facility Design at the Port Granby WMF......... I 1
3 Enhancements to the Capillary Barrier Concept ................................................ 15
3.1 Considerations to Enhance Design .............................................................. 15
3.2 Analysis Required During Detailed Design ................................................. 18
4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 21
5 References ................................................................................................................22
Appendix A: Capillary Barriers -Status of Technology and Current Understanding
Appendix B: Operational Controls to Protect Liner During Construction
Appendix C: Response to Comments from SECRA on the Enhanced Facility Design
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project i
642
1. Introduction
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited (HSAL) has been retained by the Municipality
of Clarington ("the Municipality") to provide peer review assistance for the Port Granby
Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Project ("the Port Granby
Project"). A Municipal Peer Review Team (MPRT) under the direction of HSAL is
engaged in providing the peer review. The core of its activities consists of reviewing
studies undertaken by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office
(LLRWMO) as part of the environmental assessment of the Port Granby Project.
MPRT's primary concern as peer reviewers has been to ensure that the design of the
Long-Term Waste Management Facility (LTWMF) protects the natural and social
environment over the long term and that the project can be implemented without adverse
environmental effects.
The Port Granby Project consists of relocation of historic low-level radioactive waste
(LLRW) and marginally contaminated soils (MCS) from the existing waste management
site to a new engineered mound north of the existing site. The proposed new mound
utilizes a low permeability composite cover system ("cover system") to prevent moisture
from entering the waste. It also includes a low permeability composite base liner system
("liner system") below the waste to prevent any leachate from escaping from the bottom
of the mound to the environment. The liner system includes an engineered leachate
collection system from where the leachate is pumped to a treatment system.
Both the cover and liner systems as originally proposed by the LLRWMO consist of
multiple components (eight components in the cover system and three in the liner system)
made of natural soils and synthetic materials called geomembranes, each with a specific
purpose. Together with other components, the geomembranes create highly durable and
impermeable cover and liner systems for containing the waste over the life of the facility.
This minimizes any chances of water infiltration and enabling management of the
leachate during construction and in the long term.
Following a review of the above concept proposed in the draft Environmental
Assessment Study Report (EASR), the MPRT recommended a number of improvements
to the Port Granby Project and the mound design. One such improvement was the
addition of a second backup liner system to provide redundancy (i.e., the duplication of
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Projed
643
critical components of a system with the intention of increasing reliability of the system)
and extra protection compared to the original single liner system.
The LLRWMO evaluated several double liner systems and concluded that none improved
the performance of the LTWMF. Instead, the LLRWMO developed an enhanced facility
design for the Port Granby Project that incorporates a capillary barrier system between
the geomembrane and the waste. This design is intended to further reduce the possibility
of water infiltration to the waste, particularly in the event of failure of the geomembrane
in the cover system. It is the LLRWMO's position that a second liner system is not
required as a result of performance improvements provided by the enhanced facility
design.
1.1 Purpose of this Report
This report briefly describes the components of the enhanced facility design and explains
how the design functions. It provides MPRT's rationale for supporting the LLRWMO's
enhanced facility design in lieu of a double liner system and our recommendations for
further optimizing the performance of this enhanced design.
The remainder of the Introduction provides the background to the development of the
enhanced facility design by the LLRWMO and an overview of the MPRT's conclusions.
The remaining sections summarize our review. Section 2 (Review of the Enhanced
Facility Design) discusses the development of capillary barriers in the waste management
industry and the strengths and weaknesses of the enhanced facility design. Section 3
(Improvements to the Capillary Barrier Concept) outlines the MPRT's recommendations
for improving the enhanced facility design and for further analysis and demonstration
during the detailed design phase of the project. Section 4 summarizes the MPRT's
conclusions regarding the enhanced facility design.
Three appendices have been included as part of this report. Appendix A discusses the
status of the capillary barrier technology, its use at other facilities in North America, and
a comparison of the Port Granby facility design to the designs used at other facilities.
Appendix B describes operational controls that will be used to protect the liner during
construction. Appendix C provides a response to comments made by representatives of
the Southeast Clarington Ratepayers Association (SECRA) on the enhanced facility
design.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 2
644
1.2 Background
After reviewing the Port Granby Environmental Assessment Study Report (EASR) in
March 2005, the MPRT concluded that the LTWMF as proposed in the EASR could be
constructed, operated, and maintained in a way that would result in minimal adverse
effects on the environment. Furthermore, the MPRT was confident that appropriate
mitigation measures could be developed to minimize any potential adverse effects
(HSAL, March 2005).
Nonetheless, the MPRT recommended improvements regarding the ability of the
LTWMF to effectively contain the wastes and the associated leachate over the lifetime of
the facility. The MPRT's key concern was that the redundancy of the liner system over
the life of the facility was insufficient and should be improved. The issues raised by the
MPRT included:
^ The hydrogeological characteristics of the site and the importance of protecting
underlying soils from leachate;
^ The uncertainty as to whether the geomembrane within the liner system will
deteriorate over the life of the facility;
^ The tendency towards preferential use of double liners at other modern hazardous
waste management facilities in the waste management industry;
^ The increased sense of comfort that a double liner system could provide to residents
by decreasing the likelihood of leakage to the underlying till and groundwater
contamination; and,
^ The ease of decommissioning the site (should such action be necessary), which would
be difficult with a potential failed liner system and spread of contamination (HSAL,
March 2005: 39-40).
Based on a review of the above issues, the MPRT recommended in its Peer Review
Report of the Port Granby Project EASR that a double liner system be investigated by the
LLRWMO. In the design proposed in the EASR, the bottom liner system includes a
compacted clayey soil layer over the natural till at the site, a geomembrane, and a sand
leachate drainage layer. The underlying till soil environment provides natural attenuation
as part of the Design Concept in the event of a liner failure. The MPRT's
recommendation for a double liner system highlighted the need for redundancy in
protecting the natural till deposit at the site and the surrounding environment from
leakage in case of a failure of the geomembrane in the single liner system.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 3
645
Shortly after the MPRT recommendation, Municipal Council passed Resolution #GPA-
148-OS requesting that the LLRWMO install an additional composite base liner system at
the new LTWMF. In response, the LLRWMO prepared a Technical Memorandum in
August 2005 that compared the original single liner system to three alternative double
liner systems based on the amount of additional material to be transported, construction
duration and cost, and environmental performance (LLRWMO, August 2005). Each
alternative consisted of an additional three component system with a sand drainage layer,
high density polyethylene geomembrane, and various combinations of compacted clay
liner (CCL) or geosynthetic clay liners (GCL). Based on the results of their analysis,
LLRWMO staff concluded that the original single liner design should be retained, citing
additional costs that could be incurred (ranging from $2.8 to 4.8 million), additional
material haulage involved, an extended construction period, and insignificant
improvement in environmental performance in the various options that were studied
(LLRWMO, August 2005: 5).
After reviewing the analysis, the MPRT deemed the Technical Memorandum to be
incomplete with regard to the issues raised in the Peer Review Report. While agreeing
with the LLRMWO's conclusions regarding cost and construction effects of these
additional liner systems, the MPRT sought more analysis regarding the technical
performance of the double liner systems. In a joint meeting of the MPRT and the
LLRWMO, it was agreed that a comprehensive review of the entire design comprising
the cover and liner systems be undertaken to assure isolation of the waste from the
environment.
As a result of this review, the LLRWMO developed an enhanced facility design for the
engineered mound that utilizes a capillary barrier and drainage system as part of the cover
system. This enhanced design reduces the possibility of moisture entering the waste and
drawing out contaminants as it exits the mound. Such a barrier is intended to further
minimize wetting of the waste in the event of leakage through the cover system,
obviating the need to enhance the redundancy of the proposed liner system with a double
liner system. Furthermore, the capillary barrier and drainage system uses instrumentation
to monitor the performance of the geomembrane.
The LLRWMO is of the opinion that the proposed enhanced system would provide
additional protection from leachate leaking into the environment by keeping the waste
drier over the long term, even in the event of a geomembrane .failure in the cover system.
As a result, the LLRMWO has concluded that the double liner system would not be
needed.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 4
646
To assess the appropriateness of the LLRWMO's conclusions, the MPRT reviewed
background documentation on industry experience with respect to capillary barriers,
including case studies of capillary barriers at other waste management facilities, field
demonstrations and analyses. The MPRT also reviewed the preliminary conceptual
details of the proposed cover system provided at the meeting with LLRWMO, and
attended subsequent meetings with the LLRWMO and its consultant to discuss the
proposal.
Following its assessment, the MPRT has agreed in principle with the LLRWMO's
proposal for the enhanced facility design. The MPRT indicated its support at the Public
Information Sessions held in November 2005. The MPRT has spoken with residents,
including representatives of the Southeast Clarington Ratepayers Association, to explain
why the MPRT supports the new design and to hear their concerns.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 5
647
1.3 Overview of the MPRT's Conclusions
Based on the MPRT's review of the enhanced facility design proposed by the LLRWMO,
the MPRT agrees that the concept can be designed to protect the underlying till and
prevent leachate from contaminating the groundwater. Thus, the enhanced design
improves the redundancy of the overall system and provides Clarington residents with a
safe and durable long-term facility.
The MPRT's recommendation for a double liner system was based on the uncertainty that
the single liner system would function optimally beyond several hundred years. Under
such a scenario, the upper till layer would need to provide containment of the leachate to
protect the surrounding environment should the single liner system fail over the life time
of the facility. The MPRT considered that such a scenario was not acceptable since this
would imply environmental contamination below the facility with potential for site and
groundwater contamination. The enhanced facility design meets the MPRT's
expectations with regard to environmental performance, since this concept effectively
reduces the amount of moisture contacting the waste to negligible levels in case of cover
system degradation (particularly involving failure of the geomembrane). Less reliance is
therefore placed on the liner system to manage the leachate and protect against
groundwater contamination. In addition:
^ The enhanced design operates passively based on natural capillary action (i.e., no
pumps or other equipment required) in keeping the waste dry over the long term;
^ It enhances the ability to monitor infiltration and remediate the cover system if
needed through the use of instrumentation that is built in to the capillary barrier;
^ It uses local materials recycled from the cell excavation to construct the capillary
barrier, avoiding the need to import soil; and,
^ The capillary barrier system will be less expensive than an additional liner system.
Overall, the MPRT is of the opinion that the enhanced facility design can provide for
sufficient redundancy to ensure that the water infiltration and production of leachate in
the long term will be negligible. Furthermore, the MPRT is also of the opinion that with
the enhanced facility design a double liner system is no longer necessary to meet MPRT's
expectation with respect to redundancy.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 6
648
2. Review of the Enhanced Facility Design
The enhanced facility design uses a capillary barrier to effectively reduce the amount of
moisture entering the waste to negligible levels by capture, retention and drainage. While
the original cover system proposed in the EASR was designed to reduce the amount of
infiltration by means of multiple soil components, a geomembrane and a geosynthetic
clay liner, any failure of the cover system (particularly the geomembrane) to perform as
expected could potentially produce some leakage and wetting of the waste.
By preventing water from entering the waste, the capillary barrier effectively cuts off the
production of leachate once the facility is closed and the residual moisture from the
construction activities has tailed off. The base liner system would need to perform
optimally only during and shortly following the construction period, at which time the
collection and treatment of leachate is routinely carried out and the liner performance is
closely monitored. Following the construction period, production of leachate would
dramatically reduce to negligible levels, more so with a capillary barrier than in the case
of the original design.
Over the long term, the single liner system could be maintained to provide a sufficiently
redundant barrier in the unlikely event that multiple components of the cover system fail
(particularly the geomembrane, GCL and the capillary barrier system) and some leachate
production should ensue. The instrumentation would indicate such an event and
necessary remediation of the cover system would then be carried out.
2.1 History and Use of Capillary Barriers at other Facilities
Capillary barriers are used in a number of facilities in the waste management industry to
keep waste dry. Dedicated use of capillary barriers for water retention and diversion and
their licensing in different types of landfills is now increasing in the industry. In almost
all cases, such barriers consist of fine-over-coarse soil layers used as a component of
cover designs for hazardous landfills, municipal landfills, mine tailings and other
applications where minimization of water infiltration through the cover is a major
concern. Capillary barriers are considered to be low-cost, easily constructed, and long-life
options used either as alternatives to other surface cover designs or to complement soil
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 7
649
cover designs depending on the application (Kampf et al, 1996; Pease et al, 1996; Walter
et al, 2000).
Capillary barriers are being used in a range of capacities at a number of sites in the
United States (i.e., Lee Acres Landfill Superfund site, New Mexico; Lake County
Landfill, Montana; Hanford Superfund radioactive waste site, Washington State; Gaffey
Street Sanitary Landfill, California; McPherson County Landfill, Kansas) and at
demonstration projects across the U.S. for hazardous waste, municipal solid waste, and
non-hazardous wastes. Key advantages of the capillary barriers include their ability to
retain and divert water and their constructability using natural materials and
configurations that imply longevity. Capillary barriers are also used for water balancing
in surface covers to retain water for plant growth, thereby reducing topsoil erosion of the
covers (Golder, 2005).
Recent focus on the use of capillary barriers in hazardous landfills and for remediation of
sites has brought a large amount of R&D effort into demonstrating their performance
through numerical analysis tools and field and laboratory demonstrations. The
efficiencies of capillary barriers have been studied in a number of test projects where they
have successfully demonstrated prevention of water infiltration into waste deposits
(Kampf et al, 1996; Pease et al, 1996; Walter et al, 2000).
Appendix A describes the status of technology and understanding of capillary barrier
systems in the industry.
2.2 Components of the Capillary Barrier System
As shown in Figure 1, the capillary barrier proposed for the LTWMF consists of two
layers: (1) a capillary drainage layer which is afine-grained soil layer that contains silty
sand with some clay and fine gravel to meet the capillary performance requirements; and,
(2) an underlying capillary break layer which is acoarse-grained soil layer containing
medium-to-coarse gravel. The capillary barrier is provided as a complementary barrier
(i.e., in addition to all the natural and synthetic components in the cover system) and is
located below the geomembrane and the geosynthetic clay layer (GCL) within the cover
system, and above the interim cover of the waste mound. Being situated below the
geomembrane and the GCL, the capillary barrier will generally remain dry over the life
of the facility.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 8
650
The main purpose of the capillary barrier system will be to function when and if there is a
failure of the geomembrane and the GCL. It is difficult to envisage a total failure of the
geomembrane and the GCL since these are made of long lasting polyethylene and
bentonite respectively. However, local tears and punctures may occur during the
hundreds of years of performance. Even under such failure scenarios, the sand drainage
layer above the geomembrane will continue to function, thereby minimizing any
infiltration through the geomembrane. The fine-grained soil layer (capillary layer) will
then retain and drain any moisture that may escape through the geomembrane and a
perimeter drainage system will capture the lateral flow of uncontaminated moisture that is
conveyed by the capillary layer. The capillary barrier system will also include embedded
instrumentation to monitor moisture levels and the overall condition of the cover system,
providing the information necessary to detect any tears or punctures and carry out any
remedial work.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Projed 9
651
rn
cn
N
Figure 1 -Movement of moisture through the cover system (prepared by Terraprobe)
Evapotranspiration
lion
SOOmm
S OOmm(61%) Precipitation
Precipitation
( 61%) Precipitation
820mm(100%)
r, Surface Runoff
�� 820mm(100%)
Surface Runoff
Approx. '! ti - 180mm(22%)
Approx. �' .� u_ j 180mm(22%)
Component it l !
Thlokneie .-.,1.1 t1?� tl.r NJ Ftr fl J -r
��
Component / { t
if
T111ekneee tyj itla.. try#t( 42'if
Drainage to Outlet
Vegetation
enon—dig
v t
300
,Topsoil_
300
—r— r— - --
_ r — — opsoi_
// f17Tr>
-
Infiltration
1200 Soil Coyer 140rnm(17%)
(glacla1011)
atone Art&ln bb n
l�ry R Be gravel Cobbles)
300 'r�•',.•:;_.'a ., ,:, :;.�-'.v;.tare-_�f
Sand DlaIn !1B
sand):,
roo
300
200
(coals;
Infiltration into Waste
nil 1.
a)All components of cover system operational
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
1200
300
700
300
200
b) Failure of Geomembrane
Infiltration
140mm(17%)
1
Drainage to Outlet
86mm(110%)
Infiltration into
Capillary Drain
54mm(17%)
Drainage to Outlet
>53mm(17%)
�j
Infiltration into waste
<1 mm(<0.1%)
10
Drainage to Outlet
1139mm(117%)
Drainage to Outlet
,.;.,. .a.a.;. �.
Infiltration into Waste
nil 1.
a)All components of cover system operational
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
1200
300
700
300
200
b) Failure of Geomembrane
Infiltration
140mm(17%)
1
Drainage to Outlet
86mm(110%)
Infiltration into
Capillary Drain
54mm(17%)
Drainage to Outlet
>53mm(17%)
�j
Infiltration into waste
<1 mm(<0.1%)
10
2.3 How the Capillary Barrier Functions
The capillary barrier operates by natural capillary action to store and convey moisture
away from the waste. Under unsaturated conditions moisture is retained and travels
within the fine-grained layer more easily than into the coarse grained layer below. This is
due to the larger surface area of the fine-grained soil particles, thus creating surface
tension forces that overcome the gravitational forces. As a result, moisture is pulled
laterally throughout the upper fine-grained soil layer. Since this layer is sloped, the
moisture continues to travel laterally until it drains away to the flanks of the mound.
To sustain the capillary function, mixing of soil between the two layers should be
prevented, and a geotextile fabric is often considered to separate the two layers (not
currently provided in the LLRWMO concept). It is also important to ensure through
proper sloping that the water migrating towards the edges of the barrier does not
accumulate along the migration path and break through the capillary barrier.
For proper functioning of the capillary barrier, the barrier must remain unsaturated.
Normally such barriers are considered for arid or semi-arid areas in the waste
management industry and saturation is not a concern. Being located below the
geomembrane and the GCL, it can be expected that the capillary barrier is essentially in a
near dry state in the long term required for the proper functioning of the barrier.
2.4 Strengths of the Enhanced Facility Design at the Port
Granby WMF
As discussed previously, although the MPRT was confident that the concept as presented
in the EASR would provide long-term containment of the waste, it was not completely
satisfied that the WMF would achieve that goal based on the information and analysis
included in the report. The enhanced facility design, based on a capillary barrier and
drainage system, is expected to further enhance the performance of the Port Granby
Waste Management Facility by minimizing moisture entering the mound to negligible
levels as a first priority and the near-elimination of leachate generation in the long term
after the facility is closed. The strengths of this enhanced design are described below.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 11
653
2.4.1 Enhanced design reduces the amount of leachate produced in the
mound
Under normal conditions, the original cover system described in the draft EASR was
expected conservatively to permit less than 0.01 % of the total precipitation from entering
the waste. According to preliminary modelling prepared by the LLRMWO, the capillary
barrier would reduce the moisture that infiltrates into the waste to barely measurable
amounts. Thus, the enhanced design of the cover system reduces reliance on the liner
system to manage the leachate and thus protect against groundwater contamination by
way of liner failure by minimizing the amount of leachate that could potentially be
created to negligible levels.
2.4.2 Enhanced design provides an effective backup for the cover system
The capillary barrier provides a more noticeable benefit under less than optimal
conditions, such as severe weather events or failure of the cover system. A fully intact
geomembrane and the geosynthetic clay liner normally would not allow any noticeable
infiltration to the waste.. However, should there be minor imperfections such as tears or
punctures, some moisture could be expected to funnel its way through such
imperfections. The capillary barrier is designed to capture such infiltration before it
contacts the waste. By virtue of its holding capacity, the infiltration is retained and
diverted laterally to the edge of the mound where it naturally drains away, thus providing
an effective backup to the geosynthetic clay liner and the other layers of the cover
system.
2.4.3 Capillary barrier operates passively based on natural capillary action
and is durable
Unlike the leachate collection system, the operation of the capillary barrier does not rely
on pumps or other mechanical and electrical systems. Because the barrier uses natural
capillary action to retain or direct moisture away from the waste, it is not subject to
mechanical failure. Required longevity is expected since the capillary barrier is composed
of natural materials, which also simplifies the long-term caretaking of the capillary
barrier system.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 12
654
2.4.4 Capillary barrier is constructed using local materials recycled from
the cell excavation
As explained previously, the capillary barrier is comprised of two layers: a capillary
drainage layer that contains silty sand with some clay and fine gravel, and a capillary
break layer, which is medium to coarse gravel. The material needed to construct these
layers is available on-site through cell excavation, thus minimizing transportation impacts
and nuisance effects associated with trucking of construction materials.
2.4.5 Capillary barrier is not exposed to the elements nor to leachate
The capillary barrier is protected from the elements by about 2.3 metres of material that
comprises the original cover system. It is highly unlikely that the barrier layers would be
disturbed by the elements. Furthermore, the barrier is placed above the waste interim
cover, thereby preventing any contact with leachate, which is created in the mound
during the construction period. As the waste dries up following construction phase, the
capillary barrier can be expected to be unsaturated and become fully dry with time. Thus,
the barrier system is expected to remain fully functional over the lifetime of the facility.
2.4.6 Capillary barrier has an active monitoring system
An important element of the capillary barrier is the active monitoring system. The
LLRWMO proposes to use two types of instrumentation: (1) thermoconductivity sensors,
which measure negative porewater pressure, or the ability for water to be retained within
the capillary drainage layer; and (2) neutron probes, which measure the water content in
the soil. These instruments will be able to verify that the cover system is functioning as
intended. With proper design, the instrumentation can help locate the failure of the liner
and aid in cover remediation. These instruments can also detect a failure of the capillary
barrier (such as due to saturation) before it occurs and indicate whether the waste could
become wet. This will allow for timely remediation of the cover system, adding a level of
sophistication not found in the original design.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 13
655
2.4.7 Capillary barrier can be repaired if necessary
Should the active monitoring system identify the unlikely scenario of a breach in the
barrier, the capillary barrier can be repaired more easily than the liner system. Given its
location above the waste, repairing the barrier requires only removal of the layers of the
cover system without the need to excavate the waste.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project ~q
656
3. Enhancements to the Capillary Barrier Concept
Based on the information provided to us by the LLRWMO and supplementary research,
the MPRT agrees that the enhanced facility design is a significant improvement to the
original WMF design. It meets the key objectives that the MPRT sought from the
original design, namely:
^ Protecting the underlying till;
^ Preventing leachate from contaminating the groundwater;
^ Providing redundancy in the design of the facility; and,
^ Providing Clarington residents and Council with astate-of--the-art facility and an
increased level of confidence.
The MPRT understands from the LLRWMO that the EASR is being revised to
incorporate this concept, and that preliminary modelling and analysis has been
undertaken to determine whether the enhancements to the design have any influence on
the predicted environmental effects. Should these assessments confirm that the enhanced
facility design will not have any adverse effects, the MPRT will support the adoption of
the enhanced facility design into the project.
Furthermore, the MPRT expects to see construction /development and safety
performance details provided in the Design and Construction Plan that is submitted as
part of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) licensing requirements. Such
details should demonstrate that all necessary parameters discussed in this section have
been assessed and that the capillary barrier will function as intended in the operational
stage.
3.1 Considerations to Enhance Design
The MPRT recognizes that the information provided to date, while indicative of the
conceptual details of the enhanced facility design, requires further elaboration in terms of
environmental effects and engineering details. The following considerations are intended
to support such a process and assure the performance of the capillary barrier system as
expected at the current conceptual stage (see Figure 2 for an illustration).
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 15
657
~o
as
,a
0
~.
a
L
L
H
'!~
6~
L
C~
Or
L.
d
~..~
L7
bA
.r
y
b
~G.~"
..r
~..~
.rr
V
W
b
V
~'r
CC
Q
~I
..r
i.+
u
v
h
y
0
it
U
N
L
D
bA
•.,
S
0
H
d
.O
a
a
c
0
a
d
w
c
rn
.y
N
T
:~
l6
LL
C
f0
L
C
W
w
0
3
a~
.~
d
a~
d
a
658
The MPRT expects that the LLRMWO will take into account these considerations in the
preparation of the revised EASR, detailed design and performance modeling to fully
demonstrate the effectiveness of the capillary barrier system.
3.1.1 Investigate whether a transport layer would improve the ability of the
capillary barrier to divert moisture
The capillary barrier proposed by the LLRWMO uses two layers: a capillary drainage
layer and a capillary break layer. Studies have shown that the addition of a transport
layer between the two layers significantly improves capillary performance by reducing
the amount of moisture in the upper layer. Transport layers are also capable of increasing
the (horizontal) distance that moisture is diverted (Pease et al, 1996). Typically, the
transport layer is constructed of fine sand and located immediately above the fine/coarse
interface. Introduction of such a transport layer should be investigated.
3.1.2. Extend the geomembrane liner to "wrap around" the capillary break
layer
In the conceptual design, the capillary layer extends beyond the edge of the two
geomembrane liners, installed in the cover and liner systems, in order to drain moisture
into the perimeter ditch. In the event of heavy flooding, it is possible that moisture could
back up and travel against gravity along the capillary drainage layer, break through the
capillary break layer, and enter the mound. To prevent this situation from occurring, the
MPRT suggests extending the geomembrane liner in the liner system so that it covers a
portion of the capillary break layer (see Figure 2). Alternately, the drainage could be
achieved with an enclosed system not accessible to the outside soil environment (i.e.,
ensuring that the capillary barrier and drainage system does not extend beyond the
geomembranes and that drainage is provided by collection pipes along the perimeter, in
which case the geomembranes could be joined to provide full containment of the waste).
3.1.3 Ensure durability and redundancy of monitoring instrumentation
One of the benefits of the enhanced facility design is the ability to monitor the
performance of the capillary layer. While the instrumentation should be designed to be
durable, malfunctions and breakdowns are possible given the extended lifetime of the
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 17
659
project. To reduce the chances of failure, we recommend that careful attention be given
to ensure that adequate redundancy is provided in instrumentation. Such instrumentation
should also improve the ability to pinpoint the location of any leakage such that repairs
can be made easier.
3.2 Analysis Required During Detailed Design
As described in Section 2.1 and Appendix A, capillary barriers are used in a number of
facilities in the waste management industry for containing hazardous, municipal solid
waste, and non-hazardous wastes. At these facilities, the capillary barriers provide the
primary and often sole means of keeping the waste dry. The capillary barrier concept as
envisaged by the LLRWMO, namely to provide redundancy for aloes-permeability cover
system, does not seem to be explicitly applied elsewhere in the waste management
industry in a similar context as described here. The concept must therefore be
customized to the particular application in Port Granby, including requirements of the
waste, soils and the geological conditions of the site. Being at a conceptual level, the
performance of the barrier must be fully demonstrated through detailed hydraulic
modeling and laboratory testing. Areas requiring analysis are described below.
3.2.1 Determine maximum flow before breakthrough occurs
Under normal conditions, the geomembrane in the cover system is considered essentially
impervious with less than 0.1 mm of moisture expected to reach the capillary barrier per
year. Should the geomembrane fail and significant infiltration occurs, the capillary
barrier may need to drain larger amounts of moisture away from the mound. The MPRT
would like to see the results of detailed performance modeling to determine the
maximum flow that the capillary barrier can handle before becoming saturated and
failing, thus necessitating remedial response. As described above, the addition of a
transport layer should increase the amount of flow that the barrier can handle before its
performance is compromised.
3.2.2 Assess the effect of funneling flow patterns on the capillary barrier
When used at municipal landfills, the capillary barrier is positioned at the top of the
surface cover and is exposed to surficial infiltration over the full extent of the barrier
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project ~ g
660
surface. In other words, the amount of moisture that the capillary barrier is exposed to is
uniform throughout the landfill. Conversely, in the enhanced facility design for the Port
Granby WMF, the capillary barriers will likely be exposed to very localized infiltration
due to tears or punctures in the geomembrane and the GCL. Such infiltration could
introduce localized funneling flows, the effects of which could be different on the
capillary layer in terms of maximum flows before breakthrough occurs (Walter et al,
2000). The effect of such funneling should be investigated.
3.2.3 Optimize the slope and length of the capillary barrier layers
Because the capillary barrier acts by natural capillary action, and hence is influenced by
gravity, the slope of the soil layers is essential to the effective functioning of the barrier.
The proposed slope (of 5%) needs to be analyzed. A steeper slope may be required to
properly drain the water without breakthrough of the water to the capillary block. It is
also necessary to ensure that the slope length is appropriate so that the accumulation of
moisture along the diversion path does not lead to capillary breakthrough.
3.2.4 Optimize the soil depths and hydraulic properties of the layers of the
capillary barrier system
The soil depths and hydraulic properties of the layers are also crucial to effective
functioning of the barrier. In the conceptual drawings for the enhanced facility design, all
the layers are shown to be of uniform depth throughout the mound. The results of
hydraulic modeling may indicate that the depth of the capillary barrier layers should be
greater at the edge of the mound to handle the larger volumes of moisture.
3.2.5 Assess the possibility of mixing of soils within the capillary barrier
layers
The chances of fine soil gravitating towards coarse soil during placement or over time
should be minimized since this could impair the effectiveness of the barrier. Laboratory
testing should be used to determine whether the soils proposed for the two layers of the
capillary barrier are appropriate for construction purposes.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the PoR Granby Project 19
661
3.2.6 Determine how to construct the facility effectively and efficiently
The cover system, including the capillary barrier system, consists of l O layers of material,
both natural and synthetic. To function optimally, the cover system needs to be installed
based on tested methods, as does the liner system. With respect to the capillary barrier,
there may be a need for field trial testing to assure constructability and appropriate
material processing (i.e. screening of soil and mixture preparation).
3.2.7 Assess institutional requirements towards the caretaking and
maintenance and remedial actions
The capillary and drainage system will require some degree of caretaking and
maintenance over the life of the facility particularly with respect to instrumentation. As
indicated in the MPRT's comments on the Port Granby EASR, plans must be prepared to
describe how the necessary resources for caretaking and maintenance will be in place
long after construction is completed. These plans must apply to all aspects of the Port
Granby facility, including the capillary barrier system. The MPRT expects that these
plans will be prepared during the detailed design phase of this project, and furthermore,
that such plans will identify the specific institutional requirements of the capillary barrier
and its instrumentation, in addition to all other elements of the engineered facility.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 20
662
4. Conclusion
The MPRT is pleased that the LLRWMO has considered our concerns regarding the
redundancy of the original Port Granby LTWMF design and has developed an enhanced
facility design. The MPRT concurs with the LLRWMO that the enhanced facility design
addresses the concerns of the MPRT expressed in the Peer Review Report of the EASR,
making a double liner system technically unnecessary. As indicated previously, we are
confident that this concept can be designed and constructed to:
^ Protect the underlying till;
^ Prevent leachate from contaminating the groundwater;
^ Provide redundancy in the design of the facility; and,
^ Provide Clarington residents and Council with astate-of--the-art facility and an
increased level of confidence.
Because this design is at the conceptual level, we expect to see additional analysis and
modeling done to optimize the design and- demonstrate that it functions as expected. The
MPRT would also like to see the LLRWMO investigate several changes to the design of
the capillary barrier system that it determines will enhance the performance. These were
discussed in Section 3.
During our review of the revised EASR, the MPRT will be cognizant of any changes to
the findings of the EASR associated with the introduction of the capillary barrier and
drainage system in the construction and operation of the LTWMF. The MPRT will work
closely with the LLRWMO to resolve any new issues that may arise as a result of the
enhanced facility design.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 21
663
5. References
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. 2005. Investigation of Clarington Requested
Modifications to the Port Granby Project, Technical Memorandum from Rick Rossi to
Glenn Case, August 19, 2005.
Golder Associates. 2005. Publications on Capillary Barriers for Minimizing Infiltration.
Golder Associates. 2005. Schematic of Capillary Barrier System for Mound Cover
Design.
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited. -2005. Peer Review of the Port Granby
Environmental Assessment Study Report.
Kampf, Markus, Tilman Holfelder and Hector Montenegro. 1998. "Inspection and
Numerical Simulations of Flow Processes in Capillary Barrier Cover Systems", Institute
of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Darmstadt University of Technology.
Pease, R.E. and J.C. 1996. "Stormont: Increasing the Diversion Length of Capillary
Barriers", University of New Mexico. Proceedings of the HSRC/WERC Joint Conf. On
the Environment.
Walter, M.T., et al. 2000. "Funneled Flow Mechanisms in a Sloping Layered Soil:
Laboratory Investigation", Water Resources Research.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project 22
664
Appendix A: Capillary Barriers -Status of Technology
and Current Understanding
Capillary barrier and drainage systems minimize infiltration when used as part of the
overall soil cover system in landfills. Their contribution to the efficacy of landfill covers
is well recognized. Significant research and development (R&D), including numerical
models and field data, has been carried out in recent years in the U.S. ~ Capillary barrier
systems have been used to remediate old landfills, mine tailings and waste impoundments
to meet the modern landfill requirements, such as in the U.S. Superfund remediation
programs. Old systems generally consisted of poorly designed soil covers and bottom
liners (if at all) using clays and other soils. They did not have the benefit of modern
synthetic geomembranes and various design improvements such as engineered composite
cover systems and base liner systems. Capillary barrier and drainage systems have
provided a viable alternative to prevent the entry of moisture into the waste and
effectively eliminate the production of leachate.
The effect of capillary forces in landfill drainage has been known for several decades.
Although the development of engineered barriers based on principles of capillary barrier
and drainage is of recent origin, there are clear examples of such designed barriers. A
survey of recent literature indicates that the application of capillary barriers is being
increasingly considered in the waste management industry in general extending to mine
waste and radioactive waste sites.
Table 1 summarizes facilities and major R&D projects and field trials for the
development and evaluation of capillary barriers. Reference 1 provides a number of key
research papers that demonstrate the ability of capillary barriers to minimize infiltration.
In the case of landfills, capillary barriers are used mostly as alternatives to thick soil
layers to reduce drainage and to retain water such that evapo-transpiration (ET) by means
of plant growth on the covers can be augmented. Experience indicates that capillary
barriers carry out this function successfully. Capillary barrier based cover systems also
meet regulatory and other requirements with respect to infiltration of water to the waste,
ease of construction, cost and longevity.
' Golder Associates: Publications on Capillary Barriers for Minimizing Infiltration, 2005.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Projed Al
665
It should be noted that in the context of the enhanced facility design, the function of the
capillary barrier has been improved. The capillary barrier is located below the thick soil
layers, the synthetic geomembrane, and the geosynthetic clay layer (GCL) and above the
interim soil cover on the waste. The capillary barrier is thus prevented from being
exposed to levels of drainage typical of the soil covers (which aze laterally drained
through the sand drainage layer above the geomembrane) and is normally in a neaz dry
state. It is exposed to moisture only in the event of failure of the geomembrane and the
GCL used in the cover system. Most likely, such failures would be due to localized
defects (such as teazs and punctures) and the drainage of water reaching the
geomembrane through the sand drainage layer would still be mostly effective.
If a defect occurs in the geomembrane, some moisture will pass through the sand
drainage layer. The capillazy barrier is designed to capture, retain and drain any such
moisture. Therefore, the functional requirements in the enhanced facility design aze less
onerous than in cases discussed earlier where the capillary barrier is used as an alternative
for thick soil covers to improve drainage and evapo-transpiration.
Because of this difference, direct comparative cases to evaluate the enhanced facility
design aze few, although the MPRT is confident that the enhanced design will perform
equally well, if not better, than barriers at locations referenced in Table 1. Nonetheless,
it is considered necessary to carry out specific studies to refine the design and
constructability and assure performance, as discussed in the Peer Review Report.
A number of major projects that use engineered mounds have been reviewed by the
LLRWMO during the Feasibility Studies2. To our knowledge, none of these precedent
projects (viz. Weldon Springs Site, Missouri; Edgemont Mill Site, South Dakota;
Canonsburg Mill site, Pennsylvania; Niagara Falls Storage Site, New York State; and two
Canadian sites namely Passmore Interim Storage Site, Ontario and the Long-term
Management facility in Fort McMurray Alberta) appeaz to have used the capillary
barriers in their cover design. Two of these sites, viz., Weldon Spring and Passmore site
facilities have double liners. The Canonsburg Site has used however a capillary barrier
system as the base liner (a two foot clay liner overlaying a one foot sand capillary break
layer) to prevent leachate infiltration to the environment.
Table 2 provides a compazative summary of information as it relates to the cover and
liner systems and capillary barrier systems where available in the facilities discussed
earlier.
z Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Qualified Concept Report (Report LLRWMO-03710-
ENA-13003)
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project A2
666
~ ~
-
~
b ~ ~
d ~ .o '~ ~ ~ °j
3 ~ ~ .
~ O ~ U ~ ~ ~ '~ U
~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
a. ° :~ o
.
~
~ ..,
~ o .~
~
~
~ ~
ti
~
~ N U
U ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ O
7 ~ '_'~ O ~ 4-i U p
~ v~ O
~''
y
L ~
• ~ ~
~
~ O
N ~ ~
~ ~
U ftS
~.
O ~
r, O U
~ C~
N ~
_ O
'
~
"~
V7
Q"
O
~
~1 +
~ r G
o ~ v ,~
~
>
~
~
~
H
3 ~.. ~,
~~
~
~~
.~
~
~
.~
~
~
~ ~,
~
o
~ z , ~
~. ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~° ~ ~
yU,~
O ~
W ~..
~
~ ..~
~ .b
C
~ Ly
V E.
'~ cd
,¢, -O
~ U
,~ ¢,
O
O O ~ ~ .O C/1 ~ O N
~ .~ .~ ~ .~
+' 'C
s..~
cC ~
c~
U
s.r ~
O ~
N ~ ~
C)
. ~ ~ ~ ~ p 4--i U O O
~ O
~ U cd N O
~ Ll.
`~ y '
°' ;s3 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ W ~ W o
.r U
O ~.,
~ ~
>
~ ~,,,
O
~ ,b
U cd
N .b
U ~
~ .b
U N
U
~ • v
i v
i vi v
i
•
~ N ti ~ N cd ..~ ~ C ""., ~ O ~ ~ .~
w b cn ~ ~ ~ o ~ U 2 ~ ~--~ ~ cs, • ~ ~ ~
c.
~~, ~ ~
~ ~
an ~
'~ ._
'~,, .~
.~
~ on
'~ .~
w ~
a,
,~
3r1 ;~
a o
~
•~
~
o ~
'a. .~
3
v ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'd ~ > ~ v b :~ v v~
A v~ .~ ~ ~ ¢ 3 a .~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ d ~ ~ d ~
ti
O
~..+ .ter
--i
~i .~ ~i ~ ~ .
~+1
-^~
W 1~
,
~
it (~
• ~ ~
~
a w ~~,' ~ c~ o
~ ~ ~
~
o a .~ a~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~
U ~
. y
' ~
U ~ ~ ~
• " N N
~ O N y ~ .. ~ U U U
.
0
z ~ N ~,
0
v~
0
0
~ o
y N u~i
p U U
.~ 'x
~ ~
z~
.~ ~, o
w ~~ '~
vi ~ V
~ u- 3
3
C
~ ~ a>
N H
'~ ~%
`~° ~ -o
~ w
'C Q
w `° W
a`'i o`"i C
~ ~ .~
U
U Q o
'ti a°i a°~i
a ~
0
0 0
w oG Y
o c ~
~' N
ow
5 U ~
y ~ f~/1
~ •~+~
Q •y N
0
~ U
U
C~. .~,p~
o '> '°
o... ~
~UO..a
a '°
~~ o
a . ':.
'~ C 0. 0.
~ ~ ~
~p ~ G O
c~ •°
3 o~w
~'~¢a
~ oww
3 0~~
Ua h
667
a
~~ v
'~
~
~ ~ ~ b
w a~
..~ ~
~ ~ >
O
U ~+
~ ~
d cn . ~ }"
.~.. y
~; U
.:,
~q+
^~
W
~
~ cd
C"
' y
~ v
~ ~"
c~
~
~ v O
~
~
i
U , ~
'~ °
.~
~ a~
a~ ~
~
• o
I
i O ~ ,_„ U y c~ ~ ~ N
hV+l~ r~~
+
+ ~i
~ Q"
~ ~ .~
E-~ ' y~y
~ ~
U ~ .~
~--
- ~. a~ +.~
0
• ~, ~
~
~ ~
~ o ~
,~ ~
o
~ ~
~ ~ ...
~ 3
a~
v
~
w
~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o -~ .
8 ,~ ~ .~ ~
.~
°
0
~
3
^ ~ H
~ °
~ ~'"
~ W ~ ~ c
~ .~
~ 8 '~ o 0
b ~ ~ x . .~ ~ ~
° ~
~ ~ w~x~ z ° -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ " N
~
~ z a~i E-y ~ ~ ' ~ 3 ~ ~,
o
O
'
~
~ ~ ~
' b
.
~ ~
e ~ o ~ ~
~ ~'' ~
~
~
~ ~ ~
8 i~
b :d
o
~
~ a ~ ~U ^a ~ ~ ~
c o c U w° ~ -d ~ 77~ ~ o iv
yy w /r~' ~ ~ ~~r ~ ~
(Q r l Ca
o r
'
~ /
{
~
f/~
'~ ~
~
~
O
~
~ on
''
~~
~
it
~ ¢ ~ ' ~
~ 'b
`V
N
~"'
~
y
~
o
~I
o
s.•
-
n, 1
3..
A ~
w o
a Qxaa .~v~ 3~ 3 > ~ ~
C ~ ~ 4. ~ 3 -d
~
w .8 a~ a U ~ .~ U .°
U ~
~ ~
~ z ~ ,
;,
. b ~ ~ z
O ~ ~" .~+ }.
.U
k
>
~,
~ ~
o
~
'_"
.-w
cd
ti
V ~
~ ~ ~
' .
~ '-'
. O
VI ~
.+
•.r
"~' O
~ ~ ~ ~ W U Q Q
0
z
~
n
co
o~
o „~
c~a W
W
~~
~ ~
~ f~ r.
y .~
a~ ~
3 ~
a a N
~_
~ Q M
~ ~
+'~.+ ti ti
'~ 3 ~
o> o
~ ~ ~
0
:~ :~
~ U
.~
a°.
b
.~ a 3
w
Q~
.~ C
~ •°^° `o
,~ H w
~~
~..
`~ ~' ~,
U ~ ~
3 ~ ~
t~ C ~
~ W ~
O ~' C
U o 'ou
W
'Y a
L ~ ~
. a' .. O
~ ~ bq
c.~ o
w ~ o
w ~
~o
o~
.~ U O
~ ~ •~
W c v
•• O
~ v
~ ~--~ H
Qtr ~ r.Gi
y+ V'1 y ..
bA ~ [ ~
:b ~ b i
c
aa~~~
c ~ ° °'
°a ~
v a c x
v~oo0
N U~
668
v
a
' ~"
° .-.
~ ~'
~
~
~ ~
~+
o
O
~
,~ ~
c`1 ~ ~„ -~
. ~ ~' t.. t
". ~' ~ ~ N .~.. "" ~
~ .~ ~ ~ om
~ ,~
N ~ ~ ~ 3 ~
o ~ ° o .~ ~? ~ ° ~ o i
' ~ cd U +~ aq ' 3 ~ U
~ •--~ ~.+ *' ~
~~., 't'7 ~ 4r O N ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
x x ~ b ~ ~ >, H .., .~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~
O ~
> ~ ~ ~
iy
~ 6 ~
c.
a~
w ~ ~ ~ 'b 4., ~ ~ on a"
~ ~ 6 >' 'b
~ o ~
~ ~
~ ~
•
~
~ ~yi L" U ~ F'"
v
~i 'Cy ~ ~ vi ~~-+ ~ , ti ~ ~
Q
•
~ U
~
.~ ~ ~ ~ c
~ ~ ~ O
> ~
~
~
~ ~
.~
+-'
'~
~
N
b
~
~,
~
~ ~
~ O
~ ~ ~ ~ 'b ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~
~
c ~
~'
Q ~
b .~
~ ~
o ~
i ~
~ ~ ~
~ o
~ .~ 6
o
• ~, ~
+
~ ~
c~ ~
~ ~
~ ; o
~ ~ ~
~' ~
bn
o
~
W ~
W
.'
~
~
~ ~
.~
v~ ~ Q
z ~ ~
~ O
~ ~
w ~
x
¢ x :~ c7
~
z O
~ --~ N
it
c~
v
L
.~
~.
CC
a
e~
v
"L3
...
c
e~
~o
it
a
L
O
.~
H
~ ~
-. 'rn
U O
3v
~ w ~o
y o ~o
a~i ~' ~o
wo ~~ ~o
~ .~ ~ o
~"' C
CJ ,`, ~ N
3 ~a~
~° ~ •= ~
~ c on
~ ti .°
OG oq ~'C
C C ~ O
•~ O N
3 dA
[a ~ ~ .5
> ~ ~ C%
aUi ~ w pW..
> O an ]
.~ v ~ F
_~ _~ o ~_
Q ~' u°„ on
~ 'C
,~ .d .~? ~
~ ~ ~w
~ c~ 'ti
~ via
F,
y .5 ~ c
Q
~ c~~~
y ~ w ~~
^ a~ o ~
0
~ 'dE3.,U
Q C w
~ ~ ~ ~
~,
as ~ o ~
?? o c~a °~
•~ >
~ ~~
~ b~
~ ~ .~ ~
V
~'
cS '~ p ..
N a `.I" N
g~~.~w
.~~v~
W Z ~ cn
~ ° k 'c
0
00 P ^'
669
a
i
~
U
+~ U
'~
O
~ 3 '~ ~
~ ~
~ ; ~
:~
3 ~,
~ .
3 w
N ~ ~
~ ~
O
~
.S:i U ~
~ '~
r~i ~ ~i U .:, ~, O ~."
s'~. b
• ~
O
~ v~ N A.
b ~ ~ ~ C
.
1.r 'b U 'L7 .:.
.Z: ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ti bA
~ N Q 'r"'"+ 4~
N U
~ U
N
~~ C~
~ 4-r
~ ~,,,
~ y
~+
~
U ~
...
Qr ~
~ ~
'~
~ ~
'd
.r
~'
, y ,
~
b cC
3
~ ....i
6
,~: ~ ~
.~ ~ U , ~
~, ~ ~
~ ~
A ¢ 3 . N v -~
~ a
V1
~ H
~ ~
w ¢
.~
~ U
z M
i~r
.ty
h
.~
~,
e~
..
..
a
v
v
b
...
w
y
w
u
as
.~
a
~.
0
.~
.-;
as
.a
H
O~
c~
N
N
N
N
O
.a
H
U
a~
cn
.~
0
b
a~i
z
.~
w
a
670
~o
d
.o
a
a
c~
r
0
a
L
6~
.Li
r+
O
b
C
e~
W
H
~~~Y,~
V/
0
a
^C7
U
w
h
s.
a~
.~
~,
a
c
8
h
L
C
...
~.
U
C~
y
H
L~
O
U~
N ~
..,
U
~. ,~,
~ u
F ~«
U
C U O
~ U ~
Q ' Q:
~ ~: ~ ~
a
3 W
V W -d cx .~ ~ o
it
Or
..
i.
t.
.Q
...
..
~
y
Q
Q
~ y z z
~r
~i
. ~.
0 ~
O
. ~.
O
O
Cd
b 4 b ~
3 ~
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
6 ~
~
~ ~ ° 6 ~
~
U
~ •° °
~' ~
N ~
~ U
ccS
v1 O ~ U
>, ~
N .
~
O
v1 O N
>' ~ O ~ U
~'
~ •--~ 'O .a: C N
bA O
U : ~ r., b . a: O U
bA .~ U
'O O
bA O
U .~
N
~
~ y y N N
~
M U
,
~ y U ~ N
~
M
3 ~
~ L.
o ~, ~
.., o O
~ 3 ~
~ C.
o ~, ,~
... o
~ N ~ 6 a a 6 a
~ ~ . ~ .~ ~• -d ~ ~
~ .ter, ~ ~ M C ;,~ O ~ ~ ~ M O ;~ O
~ ~
a~ 6 M o a ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 M o ..a ~ ~ ~
U cV ~ bA ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ cV ~ CA U` .~ .~ i,,
~ o ~ cr ~ O ~ ~ o
,
~
~ ~
~r o 6 ~ v 3 0 ~ H ° 3
~ U
•~ O
bA ~.
• ~. a -d
>, O >, .d
~
~
w
~
H a
i
~,
..fir
'U +
/
~ (
~
` ,
/
Fi+
3 r ~i
...
~ ~ r
!-~ U
0
z ~ N
U
N
~O
a
0
a
a>
w
O
o.
a
U
C
O
U
b
a~
a
h
ice.
3
a~
a~
.~
.~
w
w
O
0
.Q
U
N
b
a~
0
u,
671
n
Q
.5C
L
.~
w
0
b
w
3
E"+
.a
Cr'
RS
L
O
a
.r
;-
U
'~
U
y
h
i.i
U
•L
'c.
u
b
a
++
h
~.
6~
C
::
U
y
C~
w
y
y
L
0
U~
N G~
..r
y ~+
~r ~+
~ ~
Cat V
H w
~ ~ ~ ~
~ _ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ •~ a~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ • N ~ G
O
~
~
~ >
~
x
x p
z
~ N
~ p
z O
~ U
~
.~ ~ .~ ~
~ ~
~ •~
~ ~ b ~ ~ ~
M ~p ~ ~
m cd" >, ~ >, U N
U'
~
V
.~
U
~
~
~ ~
V
Z
z
,~ ~.
p ~
G
~
U
cd
Q
~
" >>
d
'-.
ti
'
'b
~
O
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ y
~ c i 7G
~ ~ 3 ~ ~
~
„ o -~ ~n 0
U
~
Qa N
~•-~ ~
b c~
~ ~
O ~
dA 0
U >,
~ O
Q U
N y
~
~ ~
4; ti
i cd
U
~
. v
i
r~+ ~ b4 ~ C". O O ~ O ~ ~ ~ U U ~ O
c~
M
~
~-:
y
• ~
N
. ~: •---~
.. ~--~
..
cd
N
• ~
y C~
~].
.:~ ~./
.~
3 0 ' ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ,-: ~ o ,~
M ~ ~
y '3 j ~ ~ ~ ~
o O
o "C ~ ~
3 ~ N ~ ~ ~? O
~, o ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .3 0 ~ ~
U M °'
c
~i ° ~ ~ a
n C7 .~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ri ~ ~ ° w r, ~ v ~ ~
o b o
.
. ~ O
~ ~ ~ O . ~.. O
O ` ' N ~
d' ~
~" ,,,~
H
U c
~
`3 G
U c
C "' O
•
O H 3 ~--~ r~ U ~ ~"
N
'U
.
~ N
U ~ ~
Sir .-=~
'
~
,
W 1--I C/]
,~ i.~ ++ ~ ~. p f--I
~
v ~ ~ ~ ^d ~ ~
~
r~ o
a •°
a ~
w 3 ~ w v
~
O
z M ~ ~,
s~2
L
w
0
b
(Jr
3
a
.~
.fir
L
O
a
..
b
w
y
h
L
6~
~L
L
CAS
.G
a
v
b
b
ea
h
y
3.
...
r
h
~.
0
U~
N ~
...
y w
... -^
~ ..
~ u
H w
~
a~ ~
~
y
~
~
~
„'fl
.~
C O y ~ Q ~ O O G~
~ z ~ ~ z z z ~ ~
~.
.~
~.
L
.~
CE
.Q ~
... ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ .~
~
~ ~ -' ~ ~°
~
H
~
~h
~ ~
~~
Q
~
Q
~ y ~ b ~ ~ z z z
n ' '
~, -~ . ~
o ~ 6 3
y V ~ cd ~ ~ ~ O ~ ti ~ ~
~ ~ ~o r, ~ ~ y ~ j, 3 0 -~ ~
~" -d ti `~ c~ '~
G~
as
o
~
~
3
~
~
~
H
x
b
~
~
~ ~ +CCl
~
~ U p~ ~ ~ O U ~ ti
~ O
c Q ~
U ~
--~ •k
6 a.
•~. ~
~ ~
~. ~
a
x o
~ o
U ~
-d >,
.~ a
°
a~
' ~
..~
H C
~~+
^O
v1 b
~ ~
~ ,
~ "C~
.~.+ b
~ O
O
' im
~
~ ~ ~
'~ ,C
~
~ y
~ v; ~"
~ .~ ~
c~ ~~.
b
A ~ v
'
~ ~ O y
y
3 ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ a s ~ ° ~ ° ~
•~ ~ sir O
~ ~ z °'
~
~
~ N ~' N o
~ ~a
~ ~a~" ~ ~ ~ ~
O '
~ on
O
~ ~
V ~
U
W U ~ z ~ a v~ v~ ~ ~ w
0
z
673
Appendix B: Operational Controls to Protect Liner
During Construction
The base liner system in the Port Granby project consists of a composite liner system
with a leachate collection sand layer over a HDPE geomembrane which in turn is laid
over a compacted clay layer. The base liner system is constructed over the natural till site.
The liner system also includes a leachate collection system consisting of a leachate sump,
perforated collection pipes, and riser pipes, which are all located in the sand drainage
layer.
During placement of the base liner system, there are a number of operational controls
used to protect the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane layer. First, the
compacted clayey soil liner (CCL) is prepared to ensure that it is smooth and provides a
proper base for the HDPE. To accomplish this, it is "sealed" at the end of each
construction day using a smooth drum roller. A similar process is used upon completion
of construction of the CCL to provide a smooth surface upon which the geomembrane
liner will be placed. Prior to installation of the HDPE, it is carefully inspected to ensure
that there are no foreign objects (i.e., rocks) that could puncture the geomembrane.
The HDPE is installed using track-mounted equipment. A cushion of 300 mm of sand
(which will also be used for housing leachate collection system) is placed over the liner
to support the equipment, thus ensuring that no machinery is in direct contact with the
liner. The rolls of HDPE are placed in parallel, as the material is strongest longitudinally.
The seams of the HDPE are then welded together to create a watertight barrier. The
welding process is subject to stringent inspection and quality control. Once the entire
geomembrane has been installed, it is tested for leaks before the soil material is placed
overtop.
Full-time field quality assurance inspection and testing occurs throughout the
construction period to identify and potentially reduce construction deficiencies.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
A10
674
Appendix C: Response to Comments from SECRA on
the Enhanced Facility Design
At the January 30 Clarington Council Meeting, two members of the South East
Clarington Ratepayers Association (SECRA) made submissions outlining their concerns
regarding the Enhanced Facility Concept. The MPRT reviewed these concerns and the
responses are given below, itemized against the specific comments with regard to the
Enhanced facility Design raised in the submissions (comments are abbreviated here; for
detailed discussion of the comments, the submissions should be referred to). While some
of the concerns relate to detailed design and are being taken into consideration in the
ongoing work at the LLRWMO, the MPRT believes that none of these concerns reflect a
need to change the recommendations in the Peer Review Report.
Comments/Questions by Dr. Sarwan Sahota, SECRA
1. The idea of storing low-level radioactive waste in an engineered mound
is experimental in nature. This method of storing the radioactive waste is a hypothesis
and it needs a careful scientific study before concluding that such waste can be stored
in this manner for along-term (page 1, para 2 of the Submission).
Response: A number of sites in the US, Canada and Europe have used engineered
mounds for storage of LLRW and contaminated soils. The Port Granby Project
Environmental Assessment Qualified Concept Report summarizes several
representative examples. The LLRWMO has studied the engineered mound concept
for the Port Granby Project insubstantial scientific detail to the level required by the
Environmental Assessment process.
The MPRT reviewed this information in detail and provided extensive comments.
LLRWMO has made revisions to their reports and conclusions based on the MPRT
comments. The MPRT is now satisfied that the concept is scientifically sound and
that the waste can be stored safely for the long term. Further studies and detailed
design of the concept will be carried out by the LLRWMO to advance this concept
into the development and construction phase.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project A11
675
2. In December 2005, LLRWMO informed the people of southeast Clarington that it is
not necessary to have a bottom liner for the proposed mound and its original proposal
is to be modified to include an improvement to the top liner only. Furthermore, we
were shocked to learn that the Municipality has agreed to this modified proposal and
the Municipal consultants and staff were in negotiations with a team from LLRWMO
during the summer. They appear to have developed a cozy relationship with each
other and it is detrimental to the interests of the Municipality and its people. The
people of southeast Clarington were not consulted by anyone in this regard (page 1,
para 3).
We do not agree. Public meetings were held by the LLRWMO to discuss and obtain
feedback on the Enhanced Facility Design with the Clarington public (including
Southeast Clarington). The process that led to the review of the original design, the
review of the double liner option, and the modified Enhanced facility Design was
transparent and clearly described in the Peer Review Report (1.2 Background). It is
the MPRT's belief that the enhanced facility design is in the best interest of the
Municipality and its people. Otherwise, the MPRT would not have supported the
concept.
3. To the best of our knowledge, the Municipal Peer Review Team has no prior
experience in advising on or building an ENGINEERED MOUND for the long-term
storage of radioactive waste (page 2, para 1).
The MPRT has significant experience related to radioactive waste and projects of this
nature, including projects that are much more complex in terms of scientiftc
demonstration and assessments.
4. We have been told by the MPRT that the proposed Mound Design is probably O.K.
Do they really know if the proposed mound design is safe? (page 2, para 1).
The MPRT has reviewed in the past year the Qualified Concept, project description
documents, and environmental assessment documentation, all based on the original
design. As part of this documentation, we have reviewed human health and safety
considerations relating to all aspects of the Port Granby Project. The MPRT stated in
its Peer Review Report of the Environmental Assessment Study Report that the
concept would provide long-term containment of the LLRW. The Enhanced Facility
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Projed
A12
676
Design is an improvement over the original design in that the infiltration of water to
the waste will be minimized. This will effectively eliminate the production of
leachate. The MPRT is satisf ed that the enhanced design is safe.
5. Are there compromises being made in order to get on with the project? (page 2, pars
1).
No. The Enhanced Facility Design represents an improvement, not a compromise.
The rationale for recommending the Enhanced Facility Design is explained in detail
in the Peer Review Document (Sections 1.3 and 2). The MPRT is of the view that the
Enhanced Facility Design meets all the objectives that the original design could not
meet and does so with less cost, and with better degree of waste protection from
infiltration compared to the options involving the use of the double liner. No
compromises have been made in order to get on with the project.
6. It is our considered opinion that, at a minimum, a bottom double liner is very
necessary for a mound of questionable design to store radioactive waste for long-
term. It is possible to make the case for a triple liner in order to build an extra layer of
safety into an experimental design (page 2, para 2).
With the Enhanced Facility Design, any infiltration, even under the eventuality of the
failure of the synthetic geomembrane in the cover system, will be captured, retained
and drained by the capillary barrier system. Aside from the initial construction
period, there will be effectively no generation of leachate from the facility. A bottom
liner system with a single liner will manage any minor volume of leachate that might
be produced during the life of the facility. The various layers of soil cover, the
geomembrane and the capillary barrier drainage system will reduce the likelihood of
wetting of the waste following the construction phase and over the life of the facility
to negligible levels.
Therefore the technical case for a double liner, let alone a triple liner, cannot be
supported. The approach of preventing leachate production by eliminating infiltration
is superior to provide additional liner systems, since it also minimizes the volume of
leachate that may require collection and treatment. We do not agree with the
characterization that the mound is of `questionable design' and is `experimental'. The
design is based on experience elsewhere and has been assessed to ensure that the
radioactive waste can be stored safely for the long term.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
A13
677
7. It is our. understanding that in the United States a double liner is commonly used to
store municipal and radioactive waste (page 2, paza 2).
Double liners have been recently used for hazardous wastes in the US. With the
Enhanced Facility Design, a double liner will provide no more safety than a single
liner design because of the negligible likelihood of leachate generation following
construction over the life of the facility, as discussed in points 4 and 6 above. The
MPRT is satisfied that the enhanced design provides redundancy and long-term
containment of the LLRW such that a double liner system cannot be justified on
technical grounds.
8. In our opinion redesign of the top liner to include a sand drainage layer in the top
liner (cover system?) provides a marginal improvement to the proposed mound (page
2, paza 2).
We do not agree with the characterization of the capillary barrier and drainage
system as a sand drainage layer. The functioning principle and description of the
capillary barrier is given in the Peer Review Report. Normally, the infiltration though
the cover system is prevented by the synthetic geomembrane made of High Density
Polyethylene (HDPE), which is expected to last several hundred years. In the
eventuality of the failure of the HDPE, the capillary barrier system will retain and
drain any moisture that will pass through the geomembrane. The MPRT is of the
opinion that the capillary barrier will prevent entry of moisture into the waste and
eliminate resulting leachate generation.
9. The liner can be easily punctured or fused joints may fail thereby causing serious
problem and such a problem may be impossible to fix (page 2, paza 3).
The development and installation of the modern geomembranes involve technologies
that have evolved over decades and the state of the art is such that the current genre
of these geomembranes can be installed and quality assured to last for a long time
(hundreds of years). Although the type of failures discussed in the comment above
could occur, the MPRT considers such events to be very unlikely. There are
numerous operational controls in place to ensure that the liner maintains its
structural integrity, as explained in Appendix B.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design forthe Port Granby Project A14
678
10. The primary reason for LLRWMO's reluctance to agree to a double liner is purely
financial (page 2, para 5).
It is our understanding that the LLRWMO's reluctance to agree to a double liner
primarily stems from the LLRWMO's argument that a single liner is adequate in
meeting all safety and environmental protection requirements. Cost was a subsidiary
factor, if at all.
11. We are dealing with the long-term health and safety of our population and we should
not allow any short cuts (page 2, para 5).
The MPRT agrees. No short cuts are being made in the Port Granby Project in
dealing with long-term health and safety.
12. The proposed preferred design option makes no mention of a contingency plan in the
event proposed design fails (page 2, para 6).
The capillary barrier system will have necessary instrumentation to detect the failure
of the geomembrane in the cover system and its location. This will enable timely
repair of the cover system. Again, repair of the cover system is possible, whereas
repair of the liner cannot be conducted after the site is completed.
13. Will the municipality have the power to intervene if changes are made to the
proposed design that may seriously compromise the integrity of the project once the
proposed preferred option is approved by the Council? (page 3, para 1).
The Agreement between the two municipalities and the federal government discusses
the consultation process between the parties during the EA and construction phases
of the project. The Municipality could intervene at any time if there are reasons to do
so.
14. LLRWMO should be required to submit a final engineering design to the
Municipality for approval before proceeding with the construction phase of the
project (page 3, para 2).
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project A15
679
The Municipality expects to be fully involved in the detailed engineering and
construction phase of the project and will have access to project information through
joint committees currently under formulation. The Agreement between the
Municipality and the Federal Government describes the consultation process during
the EA and construction phases of the project and provides for cooperation and
action between the Parties that is "necessary to expedite the completion of the
Elements of the Project in accordance with the intent of this Agreement ".
15. We request that the Municipality ask the responsible Authorities to establish an
Assessment Review Panel to assess the viability of the proposed conceptual design
for the Port Granby project.
The proposed conceptual design and various environmental assessment
documentation are being reviewed by a number of federal agencies such as the
CNSC, NRCan, Department of Fisheries, Health Canada and Transport Canada. If
the federal agencies are satisfied that the Environmental Assessment Study Report
fulfils the requirements of the Scope of the Environmental Assessment, it will be
unnecessary for the Municipality to request the Responsible Authorities to establish
an Assessment Review Panel. If the reviews identify the need for an Assessment
Panel, the Responsible Authorities would be moving towards one as a matter of
process.
Comments/Questions from Mr. John Stephenson, SECRA
16. The base liner only contains two water impermeable layers and therefore is only 0.77
metres thick. The sand layer, said to be part of the base liner, is designed to allow
leachate to drain to the bottom of the pit (Comment 1.1, page 1).
The base liner has three layers, 0.75 m compacted clay liner, a HDPE geomembrane
(2 mm) and a sand drainage layer (D.S m) that includes leachate collection and
drainage lines. All three layers are integral part of the base liner system.
17. The Low-level Office has considered 3 new alternative designs to improve the
performance of the base liner; but did not consider an option which will materially
improve the reliability of the base liner. Two new layers to the original design have
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
A16
680
been suggested: a geo-synthetic clay liner (GCL) below the HDPE liner and a second
HDPE liner below GCL; major advantage of such a system is overall increase in
mechanical strength of base liner, rather than decrease in amount of water which may
permeate through membrane (Comment 1.2, page 1).
The MPRT is of the opinion that a capillary barrier system is better than a second
liner. With the capillary barrier, there is less dependence on the bottom liner since it
effectively prevents moisture from entering the waste, even in the event of the failure
of the geomembrane in the cover system. We are of the opinion that the original
bottom liner design has sufficient mechanical strength to prevent failure.
18. Soils used to construct the capillary layer will not function as expected (i.e., water
will flow into the gravel layer and enter the mound rather than to the drainage ditch);
soils for capillary layer need to be carefully selected for particle size, crystal
characteristics, and uniformity. It will not do to select any old sand/soil for this
purpose (Comment 2.1, page 2).
The MPRT agrees that capillary drainage is contingent on proper design of the
barrier system. With respect to the soils used, it is agreed that proper grading and
mixing of soils is needed. In this regard, we have made several recommendations with
respect to improvements of the enhanced design in our Peer Review Report. The
LLRWMO is cognizant of these requirements and have informed us that they are
addressing our recommendations both for providing input to the EASR and for the
detailed design of the system.
19. Effect of water vapour arising from waste will lead to water saturation in the capillary
layer (Comment 2.1 (iii), page 3).
Soon after the construction phase is over, the water content in the waste will deplete
to levels where leachate production will stop. Under these near dry conditions, the
capillary barrier will function essentially as a dry barrier. In the event that the
geomembrane in the cover system develops defects and allows moisture to enter the
capillary barrier, it will then be captured and drained by the barrier system. The
potential for saturation of the capillary barrier will be considered in the detailed
design to ensure that it has sufficient capacity to convey the moisture away from the
waste, even if the geomembrane should fail.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project A17
681
20. Capillary layer should have an impermeable membrane installed underneath it
(Comment 2.1 (iii), page 3).
The MPRT does not think that another impermeable membrane is needed below the
capillary barrier. There is a cover soil layer below the capillary break layer that will
provide the required water retention capability before there is any chance of the
waste being wetted due to multiple failures involving the geomembrane and the
capillary barrier and drainage system.
21. Instrumentation to be inserted into capillary layer will not be serviceable for more
than 10 years (Comment 2.1 (iv), page 3).
Care will be exercised in selecting and designing the instrumentation system.
Components of the system will be chosen for required durability, ease of replacement
even if it fails, and redundancy to ensure that the instrumentation provides necessary
information even under conditions where some instrumentation malfunctions.
22. Remediation of cover system or base liner following failure will be very expensive;
damage from heavy equipment and settling of the waste are cited. as examples for
failure (Comment 2.1 (iv), page 3).
Being an improvement over the original design, the Enhanced Facility Design makes
it less likely that the waste will ever be wetted. As a result, the need for replacement
of the bottom liner should be less likely as there will be no leachate generation to
contend with even if the cover develops defects over time. Remediation of the cover
system can be achieved much more easily than in the original design since the
instrumentation will provide information that would help in finding the location of the
cover failure.
Furthermore, proper construction procedures and quality assurance methods will
ensure that the geomembranes are not damaged during construction. Various waste
stabilization and mound construction practices would minimize any effects from
settling.
Peer Review of Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project
A18
682
Attachment 3
To Report PSD-047-06
Mayor John Mutton & Council
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance St.
Bowmanville, ON
L1C 3A6
AECL FACL
Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Management
Office_
5 Mill Street South
Port Hope, Ontario
Canada L1A 2S6
(905-885-9488
Fax(905-885-0273
Bureau de gestion des
dechets radioactifs
defaible activite
5, rue Mill sud
Port Hope (Ontario)
Canada L1A 2S6
19051885-9488
Fax1905-885-0273
LLRWMO-121255-021-13000
Dear Mayor & Council:
Draft Port Granby EASR
GGC-06-071
2006 Mazch 31
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office is pleased to present the revised
Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report (as Rev. Od5) to the
Municipality of Clarington for review by your staff and peer review team. Printed copies
of the 854 page report are being made available to your staff, to the South-East
Clarington Ratepayers Association and at the main Clarington public library and the
Project Information Exchange. The Draft Report on CD is being circulated for comment
to many residents, interest groups and other stakeholders. We would like to receive
comments by May 3, 2006 in order to properly consider this input and respond to the
comments, before submitting the Final Draft to Clarington Council for consideration in
early June.
This Draft Report reflects improvements to the Project that have resulted from
discussions with your staff and peer review team and local residents regarding the
protection of the environment and the safety of current and future local residents. In
Mazch 2005, the Municipality of Clarington requested that we investigate three issues:
• Adding another base liner system to the above-ground mound design;
• Installing a grade separation for the waste haulage route at Lakeshore Road; and
f. LTg;rading the municipal road~~fa~~s to be used. to bring in canstruction materials prior
to the start of the Project.
The LLRWMO understands your objective in requesting a second liner system in the
Long Term Waste Management Facility was to increase confidence in the long-term
environmental safety of the new facility. The question raised by residents and your peer
review team was how do you ensure safety if the geo-membrane in the base of the mound
malfunctions or deteriorates? Our primary objective has always been environmental and
human safety over both the short and the long term and we would not have presented the
original design to you if we had any doubts about its long-term safety. But, you gave us a
task and we investigated the issue.
~, n~°'2
Atomic Energy Energie atomique
of Canada Limited du Canada limitee
683
2
What we found was that inclusion of a second base liner system did not enhance the
protective features of the mound to any significant extent, but that it could have a
noticeable effect on local residents through increased trucking of materials and a longer
construction period. Your peer review team challenged us to do better, so we
investigated a method of securing the contamination in the mound even in the event that
the geomembrance component of the base liner system were to fail. We recommended
the addition of a Capillary Drainage Layer system in the top cover of the facility to
greatly increase its ability to keep the wastes dry for the long term. This was found to be
a much better design enhancement than incorporating a double liner in the base of the
facility. In fact, the peer review team has said, "We presented you with a potential
problem and asked for a cure. Instead the LLRWMO came back with a prevention."
I'd briefly like to point out three other improvements that we have made in the Project at
the request of the Municipality and the residents, all of which are intended to reduce the
socio-economic effects of the Project on local residents. First, we have offered to install
an underpass below Lakeshore Road so that trucks hauling low-level radioactive waste
will not come in contact with publicly accessible roads. Second, we have identified the
necessary up-grades to the municipal roadways being used to carry construction materials
to the site before the Project begins. In addition, residents have asked us for baseline
radiation surveys of private properties in the neighbourhood of the existing and new
facilities. We have agreed to provide the local residents with this service and to keep
them continuously up-to-date on environmental monitoring results. We hope that in this
way we'll build their confidence and trust in the long-term safety of the Project.
The EASR has bound into it the Comment and Disposition form used by the PRT in 2005
to record their comments on the 2005 January Version of the report (Rev. Od3). This
form has been recently updated by the LLRWMO to provide additional response to the
comments where the PRT had not accepted the original response. As a result of the
federal review of the Port Hope EASR, the LLRWMO has anticipated similaz issues with
respect to the Port Granby EASR and has therefore significantly augmented this version
of the EASR in relevant sections. We believe that as a result of the revisions to the report
due to the changes in design, and due to addressing the federal review issues regarding
the Port Hope EASR, that the PRT should now find the revised responses acceptable.
The LL1tWIvIO supports the position of Council, that the Fort Crranby project should
have as little an effect on local people as possible while protecting the health and safety
of current and future generations. We believe that that changes made to the EASR over
the past year enhance the project and greatly increase confidence that we will reach our
joint objectives.
G. nn Case, P. Eng.
Manager, Projects & Facilities Development
GGC:sdp
684
•
arm. n
Leading the Way
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: Monday, April 24, 2006
Report #: PSD-048-06 File #: COPA 2003-008 By-law #:
Subject: MODIFICATION TO OPA 34 -OAK RIDGES MORAINE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-048-06 be received;
2. THAT the Municipality of Clarington concurs with the modification to OPA 34, proposed
by the Region of Durham, to remove the Rural Residential Cluster symbol in the vicinity
of Regional Road 9 and Langstaff Road;
3. THAT a copy of Report PSD-048-06 and Council's decision be forwarded to the
Durham Region Planning Department; and,
4. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
Submitted by:
v' J. Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director, Planning Services
CP/DJC/df
18 April 2006
Reviewed by:
Franklin Wu
Chief Administrative Officer
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
685
REPORT NO.: PSD-048-06 PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 In June 2004 Council approved OPA 33 and OPA 34, amendments to the Clarington
Official Plan to implement the Provincially initiated Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan (ORMCP). The Province defined the south limit of the ORM as being the 245
metre contour. In order to implement the ORMCP, OPA 33 dealt with the lands above
the 245 metre contour. This amendment was approved by the Minister of Municipal
Affairs in October 2005 and is currently in effect.
1.2 OPA 34 addressed those lands below the 245 metre contour that were designated Oak
Ridges Moraine (ORM) or were subject to the ORM policies in the Clarington Official
Plan. OPA 34 generally re-designated all these lands to Prime Agricultural or General
Agricultural. The Region of Durham is the approval authority for OPA 34.
1.3 Once the Ministry approved OPA 33, the Regional Planning Department considered
OPA 34 and whether it could be approved as adopted by Council. In mid-February
Regional Planning advised that they had completed their review and proposed one
minor modification to the amendment as adopted by Council.
2.0 MODIFICATION TO OPA 34
2.1 As part of Amendment 34, a "Rural Residential Cluster" designation was added in the
vicinity of Regional Road 9 and Langstaff Road (Attachment No 1). The lands on the
north west corner of the intersection of Regional Rd. 9 and Langstaff Road are currently
zoned "Rural Cluster Exception (RC-2)" in the Municipality's Zoning By-law. Adding the
rural residential cluster designation in this vicinity recognized the existing lot fabric and
zoning of the area and allowed for potential infill.
2.2 The rural cluster was not previously identified since the Clarington Official Plan does not
allow rural clusters in the Oak Ridges Moraine designation. Through OPA 34 the
surrounding lands are proposed to be designated "General Agricultural Area" which
would permit a rural residential cluster designation.
2.3 Through the Region's Oak Ridges Moraine conformity exercise the lands in the vicinity
of Regional Rd. 9 and Langmaid Road are designated "Permanent Agricultural
Reserve". Designation of a new rural residential cluster is not consistent with the
policies of the Permanent Agricultural Reserve designation. Therefore the Region is
proposing to modify OPA 34 as adopted by Council to delete this Rural Residential
Cluster designation.
3.0 STAFF COMMENTS
3.1 In order to maintain the Rural Residential Cluster in this location an amendment to the
Durham Region Official Plan is required. Since Council adopted OPA 33 and 34 in -
June 2004, the Province has adopted the Greenbelt Plan which applies to the lands
affected by OPA 34. The Greenbelt Plan does not support the identification of new
residential settlements within the rural area. As a result an application to amendment
686
REPORT NO.: PSD-048-06
PAGE 3
the Durham Region Official Plan would not be consistent with the Greenbelt Plan and
would not be supported.
3.2 In July 2005, the Owner of 7066 Langstaff Road filed an application for consent. The
application was filed in anticipation of the Rural Residential Cluster designation being
approved as part of OPA 34. As OPA 33 and 34 had not been dealt with at that time,
the application was tabled by the Land Division Committee at their meeting in August
2005. Mr. Gearing has been advised of the proposed modification requested by the
Region, and the fact that he will not be able to sever his lot as proposed if the
modification is approved.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION
4.1 Although staff support the rural residential cluster designation, the Greenbelt Plan
together with the Regional Official Plan make it difficult to proceed with this designation.
Staff recommend that Council concur with the proposed modification to OPA 34.
Attachment:
Attachment 1 - Map Al -Clarke Land Use Schedule, Clarington Official Plan
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Meliha and Neil Gearing
687
H
J
W
2
C
O
N
W
0
Q
O
O
°a
a
Httacnment .~
To R eport PSD-048-06
i ~ 0~3
i ~N~~,
_
J----- - - ,. ~ __._._
a
~
¢ n. ¢ Z
~~ Vf~
m W
~ _
Y 3
~ ~a~ Q' Z
Q
~
~
,,.
~ .
"~w~~
~ z
W
J
y
a~
~ ~ ~<_
~ ~
J
j
c°~~ V p
ao
J ~ ~
r Z ~?
~
C =CZV
~ Q Q W LL
Y
2 W Z p '~ Q g U
O
Z ~ '~ ~ V ~
~•
J
~
a'
Q O
K
K F~ -
~i ~. J t4
d t6
m ~
-~ - '~ ¢ d Q m C C
~
wE ~m ~
` ~
~ wa wU o
~ 0
m
~
_- U ~ U ~ t6
d N m
O ¢
_ ~ Co pi CO ~ `-
¢ O) .
'
~
¢ v ¢ v :~ 6
°
~ ~ ~
' ~ ~ R V
•
aim a
~~ O~ o
~
} ~
~:.. E~¢
S E~¢
LL O c E'o,
O ¢ EQ
LL
~ O W
~~~ `
m~~ l
dE m~
~
+'a
c~~
c~~
m.`
~m
Utq¢ UtA¢ UF- UH
'. ''
,y
~
_ ¢ ~ ~
~- J
O and Q
.U ~ ~ ¢ C y N
= C
~
N m ~¢ ~ c
9 ~ ~ m ¢ U m
O
~
~ c'~ p d ~ ~ ~
m
¢ ~ }7, ~ X O
~ ~ .m ~ ~
C y
--. C
<6 1
m y c~ Y O ~`- O W
~ C~ N O C ~ ~ N m Z ~ U1
d+ .0.
_
~ J ~ EUJ ~ y ~
0 0
~ ~~
I•
l 0 0 0 0=
a. 0
C
~E_'>wwE~~rn> O O
>O
i US~WZZaU' U' ¢~ ~ ~
_
.. ~ :'~
•
arm n
Leading the Way
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: Monday April 24, 2006
Report #: PSD-049-06 File #: PLN 2.5.3
By-law #:
Subject: DURHAM REGION OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW -RECOMMENDED
DIRECTIONS FOR POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND URBAN LAND
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-049-06 be received;
2. THAT Report PSD-049-06 be adopted as the Municipality's comments on The Durham
Region Official Plan Review - Recommended Directions For Population,
Employment And Urban Land; and
3. THAT a copy of PSD-049-06 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of
Durham and all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations.
z
Submitted by: Reviewed b ~- `"- --' ~'~ "`'
D v'd J. Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Franklin Wu,
Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer
DJC:sn
April 19, 2006
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
689
REPORT NO.: PSD-049-06 PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide staff comments in respect of the Region's
proposed directions on Population, Employment and Urban Land.
1.2 Regional staff released a discussion paper on population, employment and urban land.
Subsequently, two new provincial initiatives were released which have an impact on this
issue:
• The Greenbelt Plan was adopted; among other matters it impacts some settlement
areas including Orono
• The Proposed Growth Plan of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) has
been released and the Province has declared its intention for taking a direct role in
growth management issues
Notwithstanding these initiatives, Regional Council has been concerned that this
represents "a significant intrusion into the Region's growth management
responsibilities". Regional Planning Staff were directed to complete their work on
population, employment and urban land use. In particular the Region's work is not in
conformity with the provincial forecasts for both population and employment.
2.0 POPULATION FORECASTS
2.1 The Region's population forecast anticipates the Region's population growing to
approximately 657,000 by 2011, 842,000 by 2021 and 1.05 Million by 2031. An
important consideration to the allocation to the area municipalities was the policy of the
Ajax Official Plan which placed a constraint on additional land supply. It was assumed
that this growth potential would be accommodated elsewhere in the Region, with a
portion being allocated to Clarington.
TABLE 1
Recommended Population Forecasts
2011 -2031
Munici ali .2011 2021 2031
A'ax 102,000 128,500 135,200
Brock 13,600 15,600 18,200
Clarin ton 95,200 131,000 177,800
Oshawa 161,700 194,000 237,200
Pickerin 105,100 149,400 205,800
Scu o 23,200 25,600 26,100
Uxbrid a 22,300 23,400 24,000
Whitb 134,100 174,200 226,200
Durham 657,300 841,800 1,050,600
Source: Dufiam Region Planning Department.
Notes: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Refer to A ndix II for further details.
690
REPORT NO.: PSD-049-06
PAGE 3
2.2 The Province's Growth Plan has forecasted Durham Region's population growth to be
960,000 by 2031. This is 90,000 less than the Region's forecast. Despite the view that
the provincial forecasts do not adequately address growth potential of Durham, if the
Growth Plan comes into effect the provincial forecast will be imposed on the Region.
2.3 Region's Recommended Directions:
i) To extend the planning horizon to 2031 and include the urban and rural
population forecasts as summarized on Table 1 above.
The Region's population forecast represents higher growth rates than our
development charges study; however, these rates are suitable for regional
planning over the longer term.
ii) Include policies dealing with regular monitoring and review of forecasts
based on Census Canada data and to require municipalities to update their
Official Plans based on the Regional population forecasts.
Staff agree with these recommendations.
3.0 JOBS TO POPULATION RATIO AND EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS
3.1 The recommended forecasts would see Durham's employment at 225,800 jobs in 2011
and 398,800 by 2031. The recommended directions propose to enhance the current
employment policies to emphasize the need to eventually achieve the ration of 1 job for
every 2 persons in the Region.
3.2 Region's Recommended Directions:
i) The recommended directions propose to remove the "employment targets
by category" and replace them with regular monitoring.
Staff agree with this recommendation.
ii) The recommended directions propose to enhance the current employment
policies to emphasize the need to eventually achieve the ratio of 1 job for
every 2 persons in the Region.
Staff question this initiative as it is very ambitious and would require the
designation of almost two times as much employment land as may be necessary.
Since conversion of employment lands to other alternative uses is restricted by
the Provincial Policy Statement the jobs to population ratio of 1 to 2.6 in 2031
identified in the employment forecast by C.N. Watson is a more practical target
for Clarington. The target of 1 job for every 2 residents should not be used as
the basis for urban boundary expansion but can be monitored over time through
future reviews.
691
REPORT NO.: PSD-049-06
PAGE 4
iii) Include a policy to recognize that at least half of the forecast jobs will be in
employment areas.
Staff disagree. Current directions in the economy would seem to provide for a lot
of job growth outside of traditional employment areas.
4.0 URBAN LAND ASSESSMENT-LIVING AREAS
4.1 The capacity of designated urban land to accommodate the forecast residential growth
has been reassessed. The results concluded that, as a whole, the Region has sufficient
Living Area land to accommodate its forecast growth to the period between 2021 and
2026. However, it is expected that there will be a shortage of 2,890 hectares (7,140
ac.) by 2031. Refer to Table 2 -Gross Land Inventory (Attachment 1).
4.2 Based on the results of the urban land analyses (Living Areas and Employment Areas),
the Region overall, as well as certain area municipalities, are expected to be in need of
additional urban land sooner than previously expected. This is premised on the
Region's population forecast versus the lower provincial and Clarington forecasts from
our Development Charges Study..
4.3 Region's Recommended Directions:
i) Revise existing policies. to confirm that Urban Boundaries may only be
amended through a comprehensive review.
Staff agree with this recommendation.
ii) New areas shall be sufficiently large to create a new community at a
secondary plan level or to complete an existing community, be contiguous
to existing areas, allow for sequential development and be fully serviced.
Staff agree with this recommendation.
iii)
iv)
Urban boundary expansions will take into account adjacent land uses and
where possible avoid Prime Agricultural Areas.
Staff agree that where possible Prime
however, the redesignation of General
Areas appears to be a contradiction.
Agricultural Areas should be avoided;
Agricultural Areas to Prime Agricultural
A key assumption of intensification as 20% of all new residential
development.
Staff support this recommendation as the 40% target proposed by the Growth
Plan would mean that subdivisions less than 20 years old would require housing
conversions and current draft approved subdivisions will have to be redesigned
to accommodate higher densities.
692
REPORT NO.: PSD-049-06
PAGE 5
v) Add a new policy that urban boundary expansions for living areas will be
contingent upon the realization of the 20% intensification target in the
existing designated urban areas or a demonstration that the Municipality is
moving significantly towards the target.
Staff agree with this recommendation.
vi) Designated greenfield areas will develop at a minimum density of 17 units
per hectare (7 upa) for lakeshore urban areas and 12 units per hectare (5
upa) for other urban areas.
Staff would favour using the 12 units per hectare for Newcastle Village Urban
Area.
vii) 30% of new residential units shall be of a type other than single detached
residential units.
In order to meet the proposed intensification targets, it may be necessary to have
greater than 30% of new residential units being medium or high density.
Currently the market demand in Clarington is not sufficient for this.
viii) Designate a built urban area boundary in accordance with the established
1991 built urban boundary.
The built urban area boundary is to be used for measuring intensification. Staff
believe that the built urban area boundary should be based on the 2006 limits of
development.
ix) Add a new policy which requires local Official Plans to .include phasing
policies to recognize the intensification and redevelopment objectives in
the Regional Official Plan.
Staff agree with this proposed direction.
x) Add a new policy which requires the approved secondary (neighbourhood)
plans built out to 75% of dwelling unit capacity prior to the approval of
sequential secondary (neighbourhood) plans.
Staff agree with this proposed direction, provided that appropriate recognition is
given to circumstances in each urban area. For example, the Bowmanville
Urban Area can grow in all four directions and there are costs to extending
infrastructure in all four directions at once even if it is done sequentially.
693
REPORT NO.: PSD-049-06
PAGE 6
xi) That, upon acceptance of the recommended directions, steps be initiated to
consider urban boundary expansions as part of the subsequent process of
drafting amendments, in consultation with the area municipalities.
Staff agree and are willing to work with the Region on identifying appropriate
expansion areas.
xii) The Region has identified a shortage of 345 hectares for urban boundary
expansion by 2031 in Clarington.
Based on the Region's population forecasts, staff agree with this
recommendation.
5.0 REGIONAL CENTRES
5.1 The proposed policies for "Regional Centres" promote them as focal points for
employment, residential, cultural and government functions in a well designed and
intensive land use form. It is intended that the Regional Centres will accommodate the
majority of the proposed intensification.
5.2 Region's Recommended Directions:
i) That a new policy be added that will introduce a target for Regional Centres
to achieve an overall floor space index of 2.5 (i.e. the ratio of gross floor
area of a building to its respective lot area).
Staff believe that this is the area for the Region to advocate strong planning
policies for urban design, focal point creation, transit oriented and landmark
developments. Unfortunately to date the recommended policies do not support
this lead role we believe the Region should be playing.
The Regional Official Plan identifies Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle
Village as having regional centres. Each urban area has unique circumstances.
The use of an overall average floor space index of 2.5 in Newcastle Village is
inappropriate and would destroy the historical character of the village centre.
The same would be true for the historic downtown of Bowmanville.
6.0 URBAN LAND ASSESSMENT-EMPLOYMENT AREAS
6.1 The assessment of employment land needs found that as a whole, the Region will reach
the capacity of its designated Employment Area lands by approximately 2028. By 2031
the Region will have a total shortfall of designated Employment Area lands of over 380
net hectares (950 net acres). At the area municipal level, Pickering, Ajax, Whitby,
Oshawa and Uxbridge are forecasted to experience shortages in designated
employment lands before 2031.
694
REPORT NO.: PSD-049-06 PAGE 7
6.2 In the past three years Clarington has worked on re-designation and developing two
major employment areas for the Energy and Technology Sectors which will help meet
these targets and should become part of the Region's Economic Development Plan.
Staff do not believe urban boundary expansions for employment lands is necessary at
this time. However, this is based on the retention of existing employment lands in their
current designation.
6.3 Region's Recommended Directions:
i) New policies to clarify that the redesignation of employment areas can only
be considered in the context of amunicipally-initiated comprehensive
review, where land is not required over the long term for employment
purposes and where conversion does not result in expansion of the urban
boundary to meet future employment needs.
Staff agree with this recommendation provided that "long term" need is based on
planning horizon for the Regional Official Plan.
ii) Urban boundary expansions for employment areas may only be considered
as part of a comprehensive review undertaken by the Region.
Staff agree with this recommendation.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Clarington's comments should be considered as preliminary as we have not had the
benefit of reviewing the finalized policies for the Population, Employment and Urban
Land Policies that will form part of the recommended Official Plan update.
7.2 In addition, should the Province's Growth Plan come into effect, the Region will be
compelled to bring its Official Plan into conformity with the provincial plan, in
accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act, and as such
caution in preparation of the recommended directions is advised.
7.3 The schedule for release of reports and comments is as follows:
April 25, 2006 Regional Planning Committee
Consideration of Recommended Directions and Proposed
Amendment -Population, Employment and Urban Land
June 19, 2006 Clarington GPA Meeting
Staff Report
August 8, 2006 Early Release of DECISION REPORT by Region
September 5, 2006 Clarington GPA Meeting
Staff Report
695
REPORT NO.: PSD-049-06
PAGE 8
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -Table 2 -Gross Land Inventory
Attachment 2 -Durham Region Report 2006-P-10
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Linda Gasser
Libby Racansky
Adam Brown
Bryce Jordan
Tony Biglieri
Peter Walker
Walter Kranzl
696
ATTACHMENT 1
TO REPORT PSD-049-06
TABLE 2
Municipality Housing
Type
Sin e
A}ax
Sin 1e
Srodt
•. ..
Sin e
Ctar~gton .
Sin ie
Oshawa
•
Sin ~e
.Pickering
•
Sin ie
X909
•
Uxisridge ~e
•
Sin le
Y ~~~_
•
GROSS LAND INVENTORY (Hectares)
Oeve nt Period
2011 2016 2021 .2026.. '2031...
425 150 -
•~ - -
345 340 0 (380j (775}
;401 __ _ _.(120} _ __
:~~ ~ •-~ ••~ 900 895
P5 55 ! 35 35 30
•, 4 ~ i5j
.~ (5}
i (5j
'75 it35; 420) '8501 1 275'
(51 { (70; ~tSG) 230}
i 190 550 1000 1505
Sin tes 3,345 2.215 5t'.4 1230' 2.485)
r~ {-~
~ it25' <05} i
• - •:4 :. ~ 1 105 2890
Source: h4unicipal Property Assessment Coroeration I:h1P.4Ci and Durham Region Planning DepaRrrtient.
Notes:
1. Refer to Tabes t3A 1A 8G Appendix 1 for de:a td cacuatcns a tvet Livim Area land irnrentory. tvote that these resets llaxe been ocnvetted
to gross land ier the pu~cse cj this summary.
2. Net censity is calxrlatec on the basis a 22.8 uph i 6? upa; for singes am _52-4 uph ;21 ~ ;:pal fcr ats~r unit types for the Lake Ontario
jD~rt+am Sc:~dhj urban areas ;?iciering, r~ax'~'rtirtby. Oshxrva: Ccurtice, tyx+ntanrilke and Nea+castlej, and 15.3 uph ft3.2 upa}for singles
and 40.2 uph {16.3 upa} for ether can ;types ftx the remarurr~ urban areas iLyxham hcrth;. This represents the best density of amy of the
respeCnre munidpa ties. Ttk Boss density ecuivale^; is i i .4 uph t? 1 up3; and 11.9 uph i4.8 upa} resp.ctarety.
3. Vacant land Ices net in:fu::e vacant '6ia~ks" reserveo for f~~~re caving ,Crew der_-Icprnerr, cn plans cf sub.ivson cue to Ixk of detaied
ira`arrruttion.
~. Inoensificatixi s es:mxed m the basis cc 20`f> of aaa u^i; pro,utxi>~ sine 1821, ccnsisa:nt wish Settler, 423 cf the Regional O~icia Plan.
5. 'Gr+css lar>c irrventer~' is the Lnrind Area remairt:^g ;cr s^crtagej as per the ndi;ated year.
F, Numbers in paren•Tes s indca:e the add-iona! gross ljv ng rrea lar>r rc_quired to aaxrrnr.~ate ;he fcre=ast.
r'. Forecast units are derirtd iron a d~~eling unit fcretast prepared ry the Q~rharn Ro_gion Pannirp Departrrwr.
5. -he resuhs for Pickering in:ltr'e :tY Seatcn area and may be modified as a rewtt of ttY on$o.^.g C~?at ?iciesing planning initiacves.
2. Land v,:pply assu•nes a ?030 housing ma c ; 05o sins es. 30`.•~e other u^.r, gses; insistent vrith ;t-, horsing targets ccntainec n the Regional
Housing 5tatemers<.
1~.. Deferrer areas c` ~~est Whitby ;D3; and G~iumbus ;D?2; are include.:
11. -otals may not acd due to round ng. 6 9 7
ATTACHMENT 2
TO REPORT PSD-049-06
The Regional Municipality of Durham
To: The Planning Committee
From: Commissioner of Planning
. Report No.: 2006-P-10
• Date: January 10, 2006
SUBJECT:
Durham Region Official Plan Review -Recommended Directions for Population,
Employment, and Urban Land, File: D12-01
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) THAT Commissioner's Report No. 2006-P-10 be received for information;
b) THAT Commissioner's Report No. 2006-P-10 be circulated to the area
municipalities, with a request that comments on the recommended directions,
be submitted to the Region by March 10, 2006; and
c) THAT all those who made submissions or have requested to be notified, be
advised of the release of this report and the April 25, 2006 Planning
Committee meeting to consider the recommended directions.
REPORT:
1. PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the recommended directions for the
population, employment, and urban lands component of the Regional Official
Plan (ROP) Review.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 On June 24, 2003, Planning Committee authorized the Planning Department
to initiate the consultation program for Phase 2 of the ROP Review based on
the release of four Discussion Papers:
• Towards a Sustainable and Healthy Environment;
698
Report No.: 2006-P-10 Page No. 2
Population, Employment and Urban Land;
Commercial Policy Review; and
Protecting Our Rural Resources.
2.2 An extensive public and agency consultation program was undertaken with
open houses in each of the area municipalities, workshops and stakeholder
meetings. Over 150 submissions were received from agencies and the public.
Approximately 45 submissions responded to the Population, Employment and
Urban Land component.
2.3 The recommended directions for the Environmental, Commercial and Rural
components of the ROP Review were presented to Planning Committee in
October 2004. At that time, Planning Committee was advised that the
recommended directions for the Population, Employment and Urban Land
component would be presented following the release of provincial growth
management directives.
2.4 Since then, the Province has completed a number of initiatives, including:
• the enactment of the Strong Communities Act (Bill 26) in November 2004;
the release of a new Provincial Policy Statement in February 2005; and
the release of the Greenbelt Plan in February 2005.
2.5 In addition, the Province is continuing with the Places to Grow initiative,
having released the Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
in November 2005. The Province intends to approve the final Growth Plan
early in 2006. Once the Growth Plan comes into effect, the Region will be
compelled to bring its Official Plan into conformity with the Provincial plan, in
accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act.
2.6 Proposed amendments for the Environmental, Commercial and Rural
components as well as Transportation were presented to Planning Committee
in November 2005. The public meeting for these proposed amendments will
be held on January 31, 2006.
699
Report No.: 2006-P-10 Page No. 3
2.7 Planning Committee at its meeting of December 6, 2005, directed that the
Region move forward with its growth management vision and engage the
public through the ROP Review, even though the Provincial Growth Plan
initiative has not been concluded. Accordingly, this report presents the
recommended directions for the Population, Employment and Urban Land
component.
3. RECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS
3.1 The proposed directions that were outlined in the Population, Employment,
and Urban Land Discussion Paper have been re-examined taking. into
consideration all of the submissions received. The results are presented in
the Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and Urban
Land (refer to Attachment 1).
3.2 All of the submissions related to Population, Employment and Urban Land
have been summarized in Appendix I to the- Recommended Directions
Report. A response to each submission, based on the recommended
directions is also presented.
Population Forecasts
3.3 The recommended directions propose to replace the current population
targets to 2021 in the ROP, with new population forecasts to 2031. The
recommended forecasts would see Durham's population grow to
approximately 660,000 people by 2011 and 1.05 million by 2031. However,
the Growth Plan forecasts a population of 960,000 by 2031, or some 90,000
less than the Region's recommended forecast.
3.4 While it is recommended that the Region's forecast be introduced into the
ROP, it is recognized that if the Growth Plan comes into effect as proposed, it
will be necessary to revise the forecasts accordingly for inclusion in the ROP.
3.5 The recommended directions also propose that the forecasts be monitored
regularly and that area municipal official plans be updated in accordance with
the Regional forecasts.
699001
Report No.: 2006-P-10 Page No. 4
Jobs to Population Ratio and Employment Forecasts
3.6 The recommended directions propose to remove the "employment targets by
category" and replace them with a policy requiring the regular monitoring of
employment growth as a proportion of population growth. Employment
forecasts are recommended to be included in the ROP, as a basis for
monitoring the Region's progress in job growth over time. The recommended
forecasts would see Durham's employment at 225,800 jobs in 2011 and
398,800 by 2031. However, the Growth Plan forecasts 350,000 jobs by 2031,
or some 50,000 less jobs than the Region's recommended forecast.
3.7 The recommended directions propose to enhance the current employment
policies to emphasize the need to achieve the ratio of 1 job for every 2
persons in the Region. In order to ensure a balance in employment
opportunities, it is proposed that at least half of the jobs created should be
located in designated Employment Areas.
Urban Land Assessment
3.8 The capacity of designated urban land to accommodate the forecast
residential growth has been reassessed. The results concluded that, as a
whole, the Region has sufficient Living Area land to accommodate its forecast
growth to the period between 2021 and 2026. However, it is expected that
there will be a shortage of 2,890 hectares (7,140 ac.) by 2031. At the area
municipal level it is expected that Whitby will require additional land between
2011 and 2016; Pickering and Oshawa between 2021 and 2026; and
Clarington between 2026 and 2031. The urban land analysis continues to
recognize the policies in the Ajax Official Plan, which has established its
current Urban Area Boundary as the "ultimate and final extent of urban
development in the Town°. As such, it is expected that Ajax will run out of
available greenfield lands between 2016 and 2021.
3.9 One of the key assumptions in this analysis is that intensification will
represent 20% of all new residential development. The Province's Proposed
Growth Plan requires 40% intensification. Many of the area municipalities
have indicated that they will have difficulty achieving the 20% intensification
target over the next decade, let alone a 40% target.
699002
Report No.: 2006-P-10 Page No. 5
3.10 If a 40% intensification rate is used, as proposed in the Growth Plan, the
Region as a whole will not require additional Living Area land until 2031. At
the area municipal level, Whitby would require additional Living Area land
between 2016 and 2021 and Pickering between 2026 and 2031.
3.11 The assessment of employment land needs found that as a whole, the
Region will reach the capacity of its designated Employment Area lands by
approximately 2028. By 2031 the Region will have a total shortfall of
designated Employment Area lands of over 380 net hectares (950 net acres).
At the area municipal level, Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa and Uxbridge
are forecasted to experience shortages in designated employment. lands
before 2031.
Urban Boundary Expansions
3.12 Based on the results of the urban land analyses (Living Areas and
Employment Areas), the Region overall, as well as certain area municipalities,
are expected to be in need of additional urban land sooner than previously
expected.
3.13 It is recommended that, upon acceptance of the recommended directions,
steps be initiated to consider urban boundary expansions as part of the
subsequent process of drafting amendments, in consultation with the area
municipalities. It is further recommended that policies be added to clarify the
process for considering urban boundary expansions.
3.14 However, if the Growth Plan comes into effect as proposed, there will be no
opportunity to proceed with any boundary expansions through this ROP
Review process.
Regional Centres
3.15 The proposed policies for "Regional Centres° promote them as focal points for
employment, residential, cultural and government functions in a well designed
and intensive land use form. It is intended that the Regional Centres will
accommodate the majority of the proposed intensification. To support
Centres as the focus for intensification, it is recommended that a new policy
699003
Report No.: 2006-P-10 Page No. 6
be added that will introduce a target for Regional Centres to achieve an
overall floor space index (i.e. the ratio of gross floor area of a building to its
respective lot area).
4. CONCLUSIONS
This Recommended Directions Report presents the staff recommendations
on the Population, Employment and Urban Land component of the ROP
Review. However, the significant impact that the Province's Growth Plan will
have on any decisions, particularly in the area of urban boundary expansions,
must be recognized.
4.1 As such, a cautionary approach is recommended in proceeding with the
preparation of the implementing amendment. Should the Province's
Growth Plan come into effect, the Region will be compelled to bring its
Official Plan into conformity with the provincial plan, in accordance with
the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act.
5. NEXT STEPS
5.1 Upon the release of Commissioner's Report No. 2006-P-"* the following tasks
will be undertaken for the Population, Employment and Urban Land
component of the ROP Review, in accordance with the recommended
timing accepted by Planning Committee on December 6, 2005:
special meetings to be led Planning Committee will be held in each of the
area municipalities in the first three weeks of February, to discuss the
recommended directions. The format of these meetings will include a
staff presentation, followed by public submissions, which will be received
for consideration in the final recommended directions. The meetings will
be arranged so as to not conflict with meetings also being scheduled for
the Durham Trails Co-ordinating Committee;
• the consultation period for the Recommended Directions will conclude on
March 10, 2006;
699004
Report No.: 2006-P-10 Page No. 7
a report will be presented to Planning Committee on April 25, 2006 to
consider the recommended directions, including a staff proposed
amendment to implement the recommended directions and a request to
authorize the release of the staff proposed amendment to the ROP;
a statutory public meeting will be held on June 27, 2006; and
the consultation period for the proposed amendment to the ROP will
conclude on July 7, 2006.
5.2 A decision report for all components of the ROP Review will be presented to
Planning Committee on August 29, 2006.
A.L. Georgieff, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Commissioner of Planning
RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE
G.H. Cubitt, M.S.W.
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment: 1. Recommended Directions Report for Population,
Employment and Urban Land (Under Separate Cover)
699005
~~~n REPORT
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: Monday, April 24, 2006 Resolution #:
Report #: EGD-23-06 File #: By-law #:
Subject: MONTHLY REPORT ON BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY FOR MARCH, 2006.
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report EGD-23-06 be received for information.
,~
;'
Submitted by: G~'ni'I
A. S. Cannella, C.E.T.
Director of Engineering Services
ASC*RP*bb
April 5, 2006
.__
Reviewed b \
Franklin Wu
Chief Administrative Officer
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-1824
701
REPORT NO.: EGD-23-06
PAGE 2
1. BACKGROUND:
1.1 With respect to the Building Permit Activity for the month of March 2006, Staff wish to
highlight the following statistics for the information of Committee and Council.
MONTH OF
MARCH 2006 YEAR TO
DATE 2006 YEAR TO
DATE 2005 % CHANGE
OF VALUE
YTD 06-05
Permits Issued 149 219 212 3.3°/
VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION
Residential $31,368,29 $36,630,380 $29,940,352 22,3°/
Industrial $ $40,00 $11,60 244.8°/
Government $0 $1,500,000 $50,000 2900.0°/
Commercial $208,250 $526,305 $110,00 378.5°/
Institutional $ $ $ N~
gricultural $3,000 $431,635 $84,691 409.7°/
OTAL $31,579,547 $39,128,320 $30,196,643 29,g°/
The following is a historical comparison of the building permits issued for the month of
"MARCH" and "YEAR TO DATE" for a three year period.
Historical Data for Month of "March"
$40
000
000
,
,
$35
000
000
,
, ~?;~_ -
~`~
}
$30,000,000 ~
", "s
«;c
$25
000
000 ~
,
, ~
$20,000,000 jet ~~'
~ u~~'
$15
000
000 '
'~ a-
,
, ~ :
~t -
$10,000,000 .,
;r ~Fs ~ _,
. .~.
r'~
$5,000,000
r
~
~ }
~,
~
' ~r.
~
~t:
,.
2006 2005 2004
®value $31,579,547 $13,351,651 $36,755,445
Historical Data "YEAR TO DATE"
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
2006 2005 2004
Mvalue $39,128,320 $30,196,643 $56,467,873
702
REPORT NO.: EGD-23-06
PAGE 3
The following is a comparison of the types of dwelling units issued for the month of "MARCH"
and "YEAR TO DATE".
Dwelling Unit Type "MARCH 2006"
so
Apartment
32%
4 100
Townhouse Single
2% Detached
54%
23 ;~
Semi-
Detached
12%
®Single Detached 100
®Semi-Detached 23
®Townhouse 4
®Apartment 60
Dwelling Unit Type "YEAR TO DATE
2006"
so
Apartment
27%
108
59 Single
Townhouse Detached
8% 49%
33 tisti
Semi- '~~
Detached
15%
®Single Detached 108
®Semi-Detached 33
Townhouse 19
®Apartment 60
1.2 With respect to building permit activities (over $250,000) and large residential building
permit activities, the details are provided as follows:
APPLICANT
Aspen Heights Limited
Aspen Heights Limited
CONSTR TYPE LOCATION VALUE
Condominium 136 Aspen Springs Drive $2,912,415
Condominium 120 Aspen Springs Drive $2,912,415
Attachment #1 -Monthly Building Permit Activity Report/Historical Comparison of Building
Permit
703
MONTH OF MARCH 2006
2006 2005
BUILDING CATEGORY NUMBER OF
PERMITS VALUE OF
CONSTRUCTION NUMBER OF
PERMITS VALUE OF
CONSTRUCTION
Residential 142 $31,368,297 g2 $13,156,960
Industrial 0 $0 0 $0
Government 0 $0 0 $0
Commercial 5 $208,250 5 $110,000
Institutional 0 $0 0 $0
A ricultural 1 $3,000 2 $84,691
Demolition 1 $0 2 $0
TOTAL 149 $31,579,547 91 $13,351,651
YEAR TO DATE
2006 2005
BUILDING CATEGORY NUMBER OF
PERMITS VALUE OF
CONSTRUCTION NUMBER OF
PERMITS VALUE OF
CONSTRUCTION
Residential 193 $36,630,380 195 $29,940,352
Industrial 2 $40,000 2 $11,600
Government 1 $1,500,000 1 $50,000
Commercial 13 $526,305 5 $110,000
Institutional 0 $0 0 $0
A ricultural 5 $431,635 2 $84,691
Demolition 5 $0 7 $0
TOTAL 219 $39,128,320 212 $30,196,643
Attachment #1 -Monthly Building Permit Activity Report/Historical Comparison of Building
704
Municipality of Clarington
Building Services -Monthly Activity ReportMARCH 2006
PERMITREVENUES
2006 2005
March Year to Date March Year to Date
PERMIT FEES $267,681 $321,090 $87,243 $198,011
INSPECTION SERVICES
2006 2005
March Year to Date March Year to Date
Building Inspections 411 1284 619 1923
Plumbing Inspections 387 1316 628 1659
TOTALS 798 2600 1247 3582
NUMBER OF NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS
2006 2005
March Year to Date March Year to Date
Single Detached 100 108 36 82
Semi-Detached 23 33 34 82
Townhouse 4 19 0 0
Apartments 60 60 0 1
TOTALS 187 220 70 165
YEAR:
AREA 2006
(to
month
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
Bowmanville 174 307 587 468 345 312 188 184 313 423 217
Courtice 39 241 173 180 133 129 231 296 254 295 331
Newcastle 2 202 191 123 131 76 110 78 4 5 3
Wilmot Creek 4 15 25 29 38 24 19 21 33 21 16
Orono 1 2 1 1
Darlington 14 15 13 17 47 102 31 14 20 17
Clarke 1 13 10 16 15 9 17 17 12 20 10
Burketon 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Enfield 3
Enniskillen 1 1 2 5 7 6 3 7 3
Hampton 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2
Haydon 1 1 2
Kendal 1 3 2 1
Kirby 1
Leskard 1 1
Maple Grove 1
Mitchells Corners 1
Newtonville 4 5 3 3 3 1 2
Solina 3 3 3 1 1
Tyrone 3 9 3
TOTALS 220 802 1015 843 701 609 679 640 636 801 601
Attachment #1 -Monthly Building Permit Activity Report/Historical Comparison of Building Permit 7 0 5
•
~~
Leading the Way
REPORT
EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: April 24, 2006
Report #: ESD-005-06 File # 10.12.6 By-law #
Subject: MONTHLY RESPONSE REPORT -MARCH 2006
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend
to Council the following:
1. THAT Report ESD-005-06 be received for information.
Submitted by: ,. ~
Gflfdon eir, AMCT, MM111
Director Emergency & Fire Services
GW*sr
,- `~~
Reviewed by: ~L
Franklin Wu.
Chief Administrative Officer
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-6506
901
REPORT NO: ESD-005-06 PAGE 2
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Our report covers the month March, 2006. It is our intent to provide Committee with
information relevant to this department, in a timely manner.
2. REPORT
2.1 The department responded to 270 calls during this period and recorded total fire loss at
$40,030. A breakdown of calls responded to follows in the table attached.
Attachment: Activity Report
902
CLARINGTON EMERGENCY & FIRE SERVICES ACTIVITY REPORT
Period: March 1, 2006 OO:OO:OOhrs to March 31, 2006 23:59:59hrs
CALL TY PES -VOLU ME BY STATION
STATION 1 STATION 2 STATION 3 STATION 4 STATION 5 TOTALS
CALL TYPE Bowmanville Newcastle Orono Courtice Enniskillen
PROPERTY FIRE CALLS 15 1 0 8 1 25
includes structure, chimne ,vehicle, miscellaneous e. .. furniture, clothin ,etc
UNAUTHORIZED BURNING 6 2 1 1 1 11
burnin com taints
FALSE FIRE CALLS 27 2 3 7 1 40
includes alarm activations-accidental/malicious, human- erceived emer encies, check calls e. . investi ate an odor
PUBLIC HAZARD CALLS 14 1 1 12 3 31
includes ro ane/natural as leaks, fuel/chemicals ills, ower lines down/arcin , C.O. leaks etc.
RESCUE CALLS 9 0 4 6 2 21
includes vehicle extrications/accidents, commercial/industrial accidents, home/residential accidents, water/ice rescues
MEDICAL ASSIST CALLS 42 9 8 37 2 98
includes assistance to ambulance ersonnel with res irato and resuscitation emer encies
MISCELLANEOUS CALLS 13 7 1 18 5 44
incidents not found, assistance not re 'd b other a encies, call cancelled on route, etc.
TOTALS 126 22 18 89 15 270
DOLLAR LOSS
# of Fire Calls 15 1 0 8 1 25
Dollar Loss; ;39,500 ;0 ;0 ;530 ;0 ;40 030
VOLUNTEER STANDBY RESPONSES
# of Standb s -Calls 5 0 0 5 0 10
# of Standbys -
Trainin
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006 MONTH LY CALL VOLUM E BY STATION
Jan. Feb. Mar. A r. Ma Jun. Jul. Au Se Oct. Nov. Dec.
STATION 1 122 109 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 357
STATION 2 25 38 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85
STATION 3 20 29 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67
STATION 4 71 61 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 221
STATION 5 5 8 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 281 ~~:
758
TOTALS 243 245 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 758
2005 MONTH LY CALL VOLUM E BY STATION
Jan. Feb. Mar. r. Ma Jun. Jul. Au Se Oct. Nov. Dec.
STATION 1 153 118 109 148 133 170 161 157 139 118 137 128 1671
STATION 2 38 36 34 40 26 34 29 31 26 36 34 44 408
STATION 3 28 23 16 20 19 19 24 10 22 19 22 30 252
STATION 4 95 69 90 73 78 92 80 100 69 86 105 79 1016
STATION 5 16 8 4 15 9 10 12 12 11 15 16 5 133
3480
TOTALS 330 254 253 296 265 325 306 310 267 274 314 286 3480
903
•
~~
Leading the Way
REPORT
EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: April 24, 2006
Report #: ESD-006-06 File # 10.12.6
By-law #
Subject: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS -PUBLIC ALERTING
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
THAT Report ESD-006 -06 is received for information.
BACKGROUND
At the Council meeting of July 3, 2000 Council endorsed the recommendations of
Regional Council (copy attached) regarding public alerting, which were made as a result
of a study completed by Lapp-Hancock Associates for the Province to develop a
standard for the Region. The Municipality also advised the Province of its endorsement
of Regional Council's recommendations.
The key recommendations in Regional Council's report were as follows:
1. That the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Lapp-Hancock
Associates final report on public alerting be endorsed;
2. That, consistent with the report, the Region recognized an effective public
alerting system should be composed of a siren system for core alerting,
augmented by supporting technologies.
3. That the Solicitor General be requested to extend the public alerting standard in
the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan to include the entire 10 kilometre Primary
Zone as per the May 1998 Regional Council resolution; and
4. That the Solicitor General move forward with implementing a public alerting
system immediately.
Continued....904
Report No. ESD-006-06 Page 2
COMMENTS
In late February, 2006 staff received from the Province some draft changes for the
Provincial Nuclear Emergency Response Plan (PNERP) for review and comment, which
included an all new section pertaining to a Public Alerting Policy. The intent of this
section is to set the context for extending alerting beyond the 3 km zone.
On March 16, 2006 the Chief Administrative Officer and I were involved in a
teleconference with Kathy Bleyer of Emergency Management Ontario, Ivan Ciuciura of
Durham Emergency Management Ontario and the Fire Chiefs of the five Lakeshore
Municipal fire departments, to discuss the draft changes.
Ivan Ciuciura of Durham Emergency Management Ontario has responded to the
Province on our behalf regarding the changes.
In summary, this policy will address the following:
• This is the public alerting policy that is proposed for the revised PNERP
• Sets out arequirement/standard for the 3 -10 kilometre zone
• Does not presume what the alerting system should be
• There is no penalty for non-compliance with the policy and there is no timeline for
implementation
• Does not comment on who determines, or how it is determined, whether the
Provincial standard is met
Once we receive the Public Alerting Policy with the proposed changes staff will seek
Council approval of the document.
Submitted b . h- ~ •`'-J `~`~~~~~~
y Reviewed by.
ordon Weir, AMCT, CMM111 Franklin Wu,
Director of Emergency & Fire Services Chief Administrative Officer
MGC:sr
Attachment: G.P.& A. Report FD-11-00 -Emergency Preparedness-Public Alerting
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (90523-6506
905
„ _ ATTACHMENT
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CI-ARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITT~~ #
Date: ~,y 3, 2000 Res. #
Report #: By-law #
FD-11-00 10.12.6
Subject:
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS -PUBLIC ALERTING .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1.) THAT Report FD-11-00 is received for information.
2.) THAT Council endorses the reconunendations in the Report to Regional Council
(copy attached), regarding public alerting; and
3.) THAT the Solicitor General be advised of this Municipality's endorsement of
Regional Council's recommendations.
BACKGROUND
In May 1998 the issue of public alerting in the primary zone was brought to Council's
attention. Concerns arose over the issue of alerting only in the 3-kilometer contiguous
zone and not the entire 10-kilometer primary zone. It was also understood that there was
no alerting process in place that met the standards under the Provincial Nuclear
Emergency Plan.
At the Council meeting of November 8, 1999 report FD-20-99 informed Council that
public alerting, in the event of a nuclear disaster, was still an outstanding issue. A
working group that included Provincial, Ontario Power Generation and Regional
representatives was formed to examine options for public alerting standards. After
several meetings Emergency Measures Ontario (EMO) undertook to develop a paper
regarding the available options for a standard in Durham Region. The firm Lapp-
Hancock Associates Limited was retained by the Province to complete the study.
Continued..... .
906
FD-11-00 _ 2 _
REPORT
Lapp-Hancock Associates recently completed the study. Municipal and Regional staff
have reviewed the report outlining their findings and key recommendations of the report
are as follows:
• That a public alerting system be implemented as a matter of urgency.
• That a siren system should provide core alerting. There are no other reliable means to
alert the outdoor population.
• That the core system be backed up by a number of available technologies at levels
appropriate to the demographics of each municipality.
• That a means of alerting critical facilities (health care facilities, schools) should be
implemented by use of some form of dial out system.
Regional staff has prepared a report to Council, including their recommendations, with
which we concur.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended:
That Report FD 11-00 is received for information.
That Council endorse the recommendations contained in the Report to Regional Council
(copy attached).
That Council advises the Solicitor General of the Municipality's endorsement of
Regional Council's recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael G.
Fire Chief.
/sr
Attachment (1)
CMM11
Reviewed by,
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
907
JIJIV 15 ~ 2000 15~ C2 1-k tJ'irJ~I~IH(.;T y ua' 7~ ~.Ltfl(tPltit'u!V ~ 002
vsio do~~ I U l.FilJ"l.Lfitt 1 nU I uV r . bC/Mb
The Regionsi Municipality of Durham
Director of Emergency Measunas
Report to the Finance and Administration Committee
Report No. - 2000-A-4~ ,
Date - 21 June 2000
Nuclear Emergency Public Alerting -Con:ultant'a Report
The Finance and Administration Committee n3ecmmend to Council:
A. That the figdings, conclusions and recommendations of the Lapp-Hancock
Associates final report on public alerting be endorsed;
8. That, consistent with the report, the Region necogn¢es an effective public
. alerting system should be composed of a siren system for core alerting.
augmented by supporting technologies.
C. That the Solicitor Genera{ be requested to extend tho public alerting
standard in the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan to include the entire
10 kl(ometn; Primary Zone as per the May 1998 Regional Council
resolution; and
D. That the Solicitor General move forward with implementing a public
alerting system immediately.
In May 1998. Regional Council and the Counc~a of area municipalities passed
resolutions that the existing Provindal public alerting standard for the 3 kilometre
zone anwnd the nuclear stations be applied to the entire 10 lu7ometre
emergency planning zone, The standard in the new Provincial Nuclear
Emergency Plan (PNEP) states that the public alerting system must provide,
-~- lu9
908
,.,.., ~,. ~~.euellvt:lulV X003
JI~V 17 CYJIOIO 1.7•CC 1'R U'r7~•Y~1~.1 1'IG~r7ui~c..i ~.+ -n~v uv.w~ ~~r ~.rw.r ~.a-rn~a~.u~u. ~ .w•w
within 15 minutes of its initiation. warning to practically 100°~6 of the population
whether they be indoors or out, and irrespective of the time of day or year.
A working group that inducted Provincial, Ontario Power Generation and
Regional representatives was formed to examine options for publ'~c alerting
standards but no consensus could be reached. Following a meeting with Dr.
James Young, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of the Solicitor General, in
December 1998, Emergency Measures Qntario (EMO) undertook to develop a
paper regarding the available options for a standard in Durham Region.
The EMO staff paper presented advantages and disadvantages of several
options as wail as grass cost estimates' but did not provide sufficient detail for the
Province to render a decision.
As a consequence, the Regional C.A.O, and the C.A.O.s of Clarington, Oshawa.
Ajax and Pickering met with Dr. Young In November 1999. In onier to obtain
more accurate data to support a Provindal decison, it wag agreed that a
consultant would be retained at no cost to the Region and tasked to:
• examine available technologies;
• conduct a comparative analysis of costs, operational and logistical
fmpllcatlons of these technologies; and
• propose options and recommendations.
The ficm Lapp-Hancock Associates Limited was ntained by th® province in mid-
January 2000 and the completion date of the study was end March.
A copy of the report is attached. Highlights of the report foAow:
• The purpose of the study was to examine the implications of extending the
public alerting system from the 3 kilometre zone bo.the entire 10 kilometre
Primary Zone. However, as pointed out in the report, the current system for
the 3 ia7ometre zone 'does not come close to meeting the criteria for a public
Alerting System set forth In the PNEP'. Therefore the study considered the
implications of implementing a .system to meet the standard of the PNEP.
• A compiete'Public Alerting System" must be capable of alerting and of
providing instructions or precautions to be taken. To be effective, the system
should be supported by an efficient public education prvgr'amme.
• The report recogn¢ed the "general feeling of frustraRion" among those
stakeholders involved In tha jurisdictions affiected•bythe Pickering and
._ 1~0
909
..w, sr cfi..ra~. iJ' LJ i-R G'IC1[l~Cl`II..T 1'Ch7Jt.A[CJ 717J tiJG COJ.J~7u ~,nu-
~..~r,rt a„u ~ max, ~ . ~.~- w ~ 004
Darlington Primary Zones and that "studies and discussbns have been going
on for many years without concrete results".
• An effective system should indUde the mass population oertdoorand Indoor
warning needs as well as critical cars facilities (a sub group in which they
inducted schools).
• No one technology wilt Satisfy the requirements, An ire Public Alegi
System has to be a hybrid system composed of a stand-alone siren system
for outdoor alerting and a choice or combination of available technobgies for
indoor alerting. Given th® df}ference in demographics between Pickering and
Darlington, a different mbc of technoloflles could be considered.
• Estimated costs for different technologies are summarized in Table Two on
page 28 of the Report The cost for art effective Public Alerting System would
depend on the mix of technologies used and, for sinans, a detailed
engineering analysis is required. However, as an example, one siren
manuFadurer estimated a cost of approximately ~1.SM capital cost for each
Primary Zone, while another company with amore advanced system
estimated $3.3M. The cost is for what is #ermed the 'coca" alerting system
only.
Key recommendations of the report are as follows:
~ that a public alerting system be implemented as a matter of urgency,
• that a siren system should provide core alertin8. There are no other
rei'iable means to alert the outdoor population_
• that the coro system be backed up by a number of available technologies
at levels appropriate to the demographics of sadl munidpality_
• that a means of alerting critical faalfties (health care faciliiiaes, sdtools)
should be implemented by use of some fbrrn of dial out system.
• that a detailed study of the most cost-effective mix for each riwniapa[ity
should be carried out prior to any implementation.
• and that an extensive public informatlan campaign should support the
selected means of alertlng.
~- iii
910
- - - -- ... •.• ~• • ,... ~ r icr•ra.n~ca ~ - ~-.~ -coact' i u ~.nu~..u-r~ a i v ~ u~ • ~ . w. w ~ 0 0 5
CONCLUSIaN
Given the short timeframe for completion, ttte report is judged to be reasonable
and fair. The consultants recognize that a complete public alerting system
consists of warning the public and giving Instruction, and that public education is
also a signficant Component
The consultants recommend that a system be implemented as a matter of
urgenry. Although not part of their scope of study, Lapp-Hancock added to the
report their opinion that "serious consideration should be given to extending a
Public Alerting System, or elements thereof, to cover the entire Primary Zones of
Pickering and Darlington tD provide protective measures to these heavily
populated areas".
The consultants studied aA avar7a61e technologies and concluded that a mix of
technologies should be utrTized: the "core" or primary alerting shored be provided
by a siren system; sirens should be augmentetl by supporting technologies td
ensure people indoors are alerted.. The recommendation applies to the entire
Primary Zone (10 km) and include: the 0.3 fan zone.
It Is felt that the report supports the Regional position on publk alerting. In
addition, the report provides gross budget figures to assist the Province in
making a decision to indudc in the PNEP a provision for public alerting for the
entire Primary Zone. The system should be Implemented at no cost bo the
Region or the affected Iopl area municipalities.
It is recommended that the Finance and Administration Committee recommend
to Council:
• That the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Lapp-Hancock
Associates final report On public alerting be endorsed;
• That, consistent with the report, the Region recognizes an effective public
alerting system should be composed of a siren system for core alerting.
augmented by supporting technologies.
• That the Solidtor General be requested to extend the public alerting standard
in the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan to indudc the entire 10 kilometre
Primary Zone as per the May .1998. Regional Cvuhcil resolution; and
• That the Solicitor General move forward with impkmentfig a public alerting '
system immediately.
~- 1~,Z
911
~u~ i~ cr~r~n t~• r~ rr~ CI•It-lUt1Vl.Y 5 `.~ 4.314 tlb.SJ I IJ ~:F'><J-C:LhK1Ml~ I UIY r. bb/YJb X81 VU6
Respectfully submitted for your approval,
r V'~ivt ~°~~`~~
Ivan Ciuciura ~~
Director of Emergency Measunas
Recommended for presentation ~ Committee.
G H ~ S.
Ch mi five OfAcer
~-~ 1~3
>~ TOTAL PAGE. 06 >~
91 2
•
~~
Leading the Way
REPORT
CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: April 24th, 2006
Report #: COD-017-06 File #
By-law #
Subject: SUPPLIER INFORMATION NIGHT
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following: '
1. THAT Report COD-017-06 be received for information.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT
Over the past several years, the Purchasing Division has been making every effort to encourage
local suppliers to participate in the Municipality of Clarington bidding process.
Initiatives have included presentations and participation in the Oshawa/Clarington Chamber of
Commerce Reverse Trade Shows as well as the Canadian Professional Sales Association
Conference. In 2000, The Municipality of Clarington held it's first Supplier Information Night
which attracted approximately 50 participants. Supplier Information Nights have been held
every two years since 2000, with attendance at the last event reaching over 100 participants.
Submitted b Reviewed b ~, '
Y
arie Marano, H.B.Sc., C.M.O. Franklin Wu,
Director of Corporate Services Chief Administrative Officer
MMILAB1km
1201
REPORT NO.: COD-017-06
PAGE 2
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT (cont'd)
It is staff s opinion that in many cases information sharing and education of our supplier base is
the key to success. Many small suppliers feel intimidated by the bidding process and do not
fully understand tendering issues.
Our local suppliers have a competitive local advantage and it is the objective of the Purchasing
Division to utilize this advantage wherever possible.
In order to continue the educational process and build on our success, the Municipality of
Clarington will be hosting it's forth "Supplier Information Night" to be held on June 27~', 2006 at 7:00
pm at the Courtice Community Complex. This event will be advertised in local newspapers and on
the Municipality of Clarington Website. In addition, personal invitations will be sent out based on
our existing list of potential bidders as well as those listed in the Municipality's, Business Directory.
The evening will include speakers from the Municipality of Clarington, the Kawartha Pine Ridge
District School Board, the Clarington Public Library and the Durham Purchasing Co-operative.
As an added feature this year Detective John Van Seters from the Major Fraud Unit of the Durham
Regional Police will be making a presentation on Fraud Awareness and the latest scams that
businesses should be aware of.
Staff presentations will also be made to review new policies and procedures for bidding put in place
since 2004 as well as an update on proposed construction for 2006/2007.
It is hoped this unique opportunity will provide valuable information to both current and prospective
suppliers.
Upon completion, this event will be evaluated and a summary report provided to Council.
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-4169
1202
~,
err
Peer Review of the
Enhanced Facility Design
Presentation to GPA
April 24 , 2006
H A R D Y
STEV ENSON
AND ASSOCIATES
Background
* Peer review of EASR (2005 ) recommended
double liner system
• LLRWMO improved the cover with a capillary
drainage system as a better alternative
• MPRT supported the proposal
- - Issues raised by Council and the public were
reviewed by the MPRT
Purpose of the Presentation
• Review why MPRT initially recommended a double
liner
• Review how Enhanced Facility Design meets MPRT
expectations
• Identify strengths of Enhanced Facility Design
• Discuss use of capillary barriers in North America
• Discuss how liner will be protected during installation
• Respond to public comments regarding the design
Why the MPRT asked for a double liner
While initial LLRWMO design was
adequate , MPRT saw 6 areas of concern :
9
5.
Redundancy
Consideration of till as a design barrier
Soil and groundwater contamination
Durability of liner
Use of double liners elsewhere
Ease of decommissioning the site
r
Conclusions about Enhanced Facility
Design
• Addresses original design issues:
- Provides Clarington residents with a safe and
durable long term facility
- Protects underlying till and prevents leachate from
contaminating groundwater
- Ensures redundancy of the overall system
- Superior to double liner system
• Will not result in additional truck traffic and
extended construction period
Enhanced Facility Design
Sand Dra n (f ne sand)
Capllary Break
(coarse gravel)
a
SSW
��..:..
MW I
compecwd Clay Cover---�
Geomembrane Layer-
Non-perforemd Raw?ipe-
_ewftm CoA—Km
Send Layer
Topsoil
Stone Arai-Intrusion
(coarse gravel,cobbles)
WASTE
Parteradd J
Lmdum Ci1 Pke
, I Vegetation
Membrane Cover
GeocompoM
Clay Cower
8wnP
Redundancy
• The capillary drainage provides redundant
backup for the geomembrane/GCL in the
cover system
• This minimizes leachate even in case of
cover malfunction
• With instrumentation , better institutional care
can be provided
• Double liner becomes unnecessary
Till as a barrier and soil / groundwater
contamination
Focus is on avoiding contact of leachate with
underlying till
• Capillary barrier minimizes leachate
production and improved institutional care
• Minimal potential for soil/groundwater
contamination
Durability of liner
• Due to minimized leachate production , liner
less prone to failure
• Failure of cover is detectable and repairable,
which will help prolong liner life
E Use of double liners elsewhere
• Double liners used in U . S . as matter of
convention
• Cover systems are improved upon where
there are no liners or liner not adequate
• Enhanced facility design reflects current
practices elsewhere and is significant
improvement over original design
Ease of decommissioning the site
• Enhanced design minimizes leachate
production
• Potential for soil/groundwater contamination
is minimized
• This makes decommissioning the site easier
Strengths of Enhanced Facility Design
• Engineering focused on "prevention" rather
than "cure"
• Capillary drainage reduces amount of
leachate produced in the mound
• Capillary drainage provides effective backup
for geomembrane/GCL in the cover system
• Operates passively based on natural
capillary action and is durable
Strengths of Enhanced Facility Design
• Is constructed using local materials recycled
from the cell excavation
• Is not exposed to the elements nor to
leachate
• Has an active monitoring system enabling
detection of cover system malfunction
Can be repaired
Use of capillary barriers
• Significant research and development has
been carried out in recent years in the U . S .
• Capillary barriers used for radioactive waste
Also used to remediate old landfills , mine
tailings and waste impoundments
• Capillary barriers typically installed in
facilities for cover enhancement and as
substitute for liner improvement
0
w
Installed and Operational
Monticello Utah Superfund
Site (Rw)
Lee Acres Landfill
Gatley St. Sanitary Landfill
Hanford Superfund Site (Rw)
McPherson County Landfill
Equity Silver Mine
Field Tested
Douglas County Recycling
and Disposal Facility
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Hazardous Waste Site
Idaho National Laboratory
Site
Texas LLRW Disposal
Facility (Rw)
Protecting liner during
construction
• Compacted clayey soil liner (CCL) forms a
prepared base for the liner
• CCL is "sealed" at end of day using a smooth
drum roller
• High-density polyethylene liner ( HDPE) is
installed using track-mounted equipment
• Seams of HDPE are fused together to create
a watertight barrier
Inspection and testing of liner
• Before installing HDPE , CCL is manually
inspected
• Once entire geomembrane is installed , it is
tested for leaks before the soil material is
placed overtop
• Full-time field inspection and testing occurs
throughout the construction period
Technical Comments from SECRA
• Various comments from SECRA were
reviewed by the MPRT
• Peer Review Report summarizes our
responses
• The SECRA comments do not alter our
stated conclusion
Technical comments from SECRA
Comment
• It is possible to make
the case for a triple
liner in order to build an
extra layer of safety into
an experimental design
Response
• Preventing leachate
production by
eliminating infiltration is
superior to providing
additional liner
systems, as it
minimizes the volume
of leachate that may
require collection and
treatment
i ecnnicai comments from SEGh A
Comment
A double liner is
commonly used to store
municipal and
radioactive waste
Response
Double liners used for
hazardous wastes in
the U . S . as a matter of
convention
With the Enhanced
Facility Design , a
double liner will have
little advantage over a
single liner
Technical comments from SECRA
joints may fail thereby
causing serious
problem and such a
problem may be
impossible to fix
action
io prevent inis rrom
occurring
• There are numerous
operational controls in
place to ensure that the
liner maintains its
structural integrity
Technical comments from SECRA
Comment
• The proposed preferred
design option does not
mention a contingency
plan should the
proposed design fail
Response
• Repair of facility is the
contingency plan
• Capillary barrier will
have instrumentation to
detect failure of
geomembrane in the
cover system
• Will enable timely repair
of the cover system if
necessary
Technical comments from SECRA
Comment
• Remediation of cover
system or base liner
following failure will be
very expensive
• Damage from heavy
equipment and settling
of the waste are cited
as examples for failure
Response
• Liner replacement
unlikely as enhanced
cover prevents
leachate.
• Cover system can be
repaired
• Controls will ensure
liner not damaged in
construction
In Conclusion
• MPRT is confident that the enhanced facility
design concept can be constructed to :
- Protect the health and safety of residents
- Protect the underlying till
- Prevent leachate from contaminating the soil and
groundwater
- Provide redundancy in the design of the facility
- Provide Clarington with confidence in a superior
facility
Mr Mayor, Members of Council
Subject: PDS-047-06
Staff Report on Port Granby Project -Update on the Enhanced
~o/~ Design and the Revised Environmental Study Report.
Presentation at Council Meeting 24~'. April 2006
By John Stephenson.
I have studied the report PSD-047-06 and its attachments. I have the following
observations/comments:
1) This is not a good report! Many paragraphs are statements of opinion or are
open to discussion. The time allowed for this presentation does not allow me to
do a detailed review, but I am prepared to sit with councilors in order to go over
the report point by point if they so wish.
2) The report uses a lot ofambiguous language' by which I mean that I have to
decide what the author means. Examples include:
i) the title, which should read 'Update on the Enhanced Cover Design ....'
ii) para 2.1 'The base liner is required to 'deal with leachate'. I think the
author means 'collect leachate' .
Iii) The word 'redundant' is used several times in this report. An example
is para 2.2 (page 3, 4t". Line)".......provide redundant containment...."
In this case the word redundant can be deleted without loosing the
context of the sentence. In any case there should be nothing
redundant about the design of this facility! ('redundant' means 'of no
further use', 'superfluous' )
iv) para. 2.4 (page 3, 3rd sentence) ".....composed ofnatural material' ...'
I think the author means 'sieved local soils'
There are other examples, but I think the above is enough.
3) The author of the report states (para 1.5) that "The purpose of this report is to
provide an overview of the MPRT'S position with respect to the design of the
LTWMF, and to respond to specific questions and issues raised by both council
and residents, and to advise council with respect to the status of the revised
EASR"
Para 6.1 Conclusions (page 10, 2"d. Sentence) states:
The MPRT and Staff are confident that the enhanced facility (cover (?)) design
with the inclusion of the capillary drainage layer into the mound cover, and a
three (two?) component base liner system represents a significant improvement
to the design of the facility, and makes the double liner originally recommended
by the MPRT technically unnecessary.
First, I want to repeat what I said in my Jan. 30~'. '06 presentation to council -
that the proposed base liner has only two components intended to prevent
leachate being released to the environment. These are the 2 mm thick high
density polyethylene (HDPE) membrane, and the 750 mm thick layer of
compacted 'clayey soil' (whatever that means? See MPRT report.). This part of
the proposal, now before council, is the same as it always was - no change. ,
This part of the proposal is not 'enhanced'.
There is also in the base of the mound a 500 mm thick layer of sand whose
function is to allow leachate to drain to the bottom of the mound ('the sump') so
that it can be pumped to the leachate treatment facility.. This layer is not part of
the mound containment system. It is part of the leachate recovery and treatment
system. It is also the same as in the original proposal.
Second, I want you to note that Para 3.6.2 (page 7) states that "the wastes
within the mound will retain much of its original water content in tension and this
water will never drain out". "It will also not evaporate because of the 3.5 m thick
(impermeable) mound cover over top of the waste" (my word in parenthesis).
We agree with this statement, at least in part. The point I want you to get is that
this water content will ensure that the relative humidity inside the mound will
always be close to 100%. This high humidity can be expected to have a
detrimental effect on the performance of the capillary layer.
Third, I want to go to Para 3.2 (page18) of Attachment #2 (Peer Review of the
LLRWMO's Enhanced Facility Design for the Port Granby Project, dated March
2006, and prepared by Hardy Stevenson and Associates Ltd. The 3~d. Sentence
states:
"The capillary barrier concept as envisaged by the LLRWMO, namely to provide
redundancy for a low permeability cover system, does not seem to have been
explicitly applied elsewhere in the waste management industry, in a similar
context as described here"
The 5~'. Sentence of the same para. states " .... being at a conceptual level,
the performance of the barrier must be fully demonstrated through detailed
hydraulic modeling and laboratory testing"
Subsequent paragraphs clearly state the lack of knowledge and understanding of
the performance of the capillary barrier system in a mound such as that
proposed by the LLRWMO.
Para 3.2.1 Determine maximum flow before breakthrough occurs.
" 3.2.2 Asses the effect of funneling flow patterns
" 3.2.3 Optimize the slope and length of capillary barrier layers
" 3.2.4 Optimize soil depth and hydraulic properties of the layers of the
capillary barrier systems
" 3.2.5 Assess the possibility of mixing soils within the capillary barrier
layers.
" 3.2.6 Determine how to construct the facility effectively and efficiently
" 3.2.7 Asses Institutional requirements towards caretaking,
maintenance and remedial actions.
z
I conclude that the MPRT knows nothing about the performance of a real, in-
place capillary barrier system in a mound such as that proposed by the
LLRWMO, yet they claim "they are confident that this concept can be
constructed to provide Clarington residents with a state of the art facility and an
increased level of confidence".
I want you to know that I, professionally, do not believe that this 'capillary
concept' will work when installed inside a near 100% humid engineered mound.
Our previous comments on this issue (presented to council on Jan 30~') have
been brushed aside by Planning staff and the MPRT (this report, Section 3, see
below)
I must also draw your attention to Para 6.2 (page 10). The second sentence in
this paragraph states "Council's endorsement of a Preferred Option for the Port
Granby Project .....". I ask you to note that you have only been given one option
to endorse -you have'Hobson's Choice'
Mr Mayor, Members of Council, I have been asked to inform you that at a
general meeting of the South East Clarington Ratepayers Association (SECRA)
on April 19~' 2006, the following Resolution was passed unanimously:
South East Clarington Ratepayers Association (SECRA) request the Municipality
of Clarington and the Government of Canada to direct the Low Level Radioactive
Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) to include a double base liner, consisting
of an additional 5 mm thick Geo-synthetic Clay membrane (GCM) and an
additional 2 mm thick High Density Polyethylene Membrane (HDPEM) (as
described in Mr. Stephenson's Jan.30~'. '06 presentation to Council) over the top
of the existing 2 mm thick HDPEM base liner for the proposed mound for the
storage of the radioactive waste at Port Granby .
We, the people of South East Clarington would prefer that the waste be
contained at its present location if the Government of Canada is not prepared to
provide the funds necessary for proper long term storage of the waste.
[Note: The primary function of these additional membranes is to increase the
tensile strength of the base liner system, so as to reduce to as low as is
reasonable, the risk of puncture, splitting or tearing of the base liner system,
during the placement of the sand drainage layer and the subsequent placement
of waste material. There will also be an associated small reduction in the amount
of leachate permeating the triple membrane layer]
4) With reference to comments from SECRA, presented at the Jan.30"'. '06
meeting of council, Appendix'C' of the MPRT's Report, (page A11) the opening
paragraph concludes "........ the MPRT believes that non of these concerns
reflect a need to change the recommendations of the Peer review Report."
It would seem that we are wasting our time!
3
Mr Mayor, Members of Council, although it is late in the process, I have to tell
you that you and your staff, from the beginning have been unable to understand
that there is a fundamental difference between leaving the waste where it is, and
digging it up and moving it over the road. You have consistently refused to insist
that our representatives be allowed too sit in on Preferred Concept, and Design
deliberations of the LLRWMO and to allow us to participate in the Municipal Peer
Review Team's deliberations. Consequently our concerns have been repeatedly
brushed aside both by the LLRWMO and this council. Both you and Clarington
are the poorer for this omission.
A second Resolution was passed unanimously at the same meeting of the
SECRA. It reads as follows:
South East Clarington Ratepayers Association has NO CONFIDENCE in the
ability of the the Low Level Radioactive Waste management Office (LLRWMO)
to conduct the Environmental Assessment Study for the Port Granby Project in a
fair and unbiased manner. It is our considered opinion that the analysis of
studies undertaken by the LLRWMO is very subjective and shows a clear bias on
its part in order to arrive at predetermined conclusions.
We ask the Municipality of Clarington and the Government of Canada to order
an independent review of the operation of the LLRWMO regarding the Port
Granby project.
I have been directed by the persons attending the above meeting to send both of
these Resolutions to the appropriate Authorities.
Council should note that the recently released Environmental Assessment Study
(EAS) has not been reviewed by SECRA because the Executive considers that it
does not have the required expertise, nor do its members have the time to
review this study before May 3ro. By copy of this presentation we ask council to
authorize SECRA to engage an independent consulting firm to study the EAS
Report on our behalf, and to provide the funds for this review. (We have no
confidence in the MPRT)
5) One last issue (arising from the SECRA General Meeting) remains for this
presentation -there have, as yet, been no indications as to how the LLRWMO
intends to monitor airborne concentrations of Thorium-230 in air, and provide
timely information to both workers and residents in the locality, if and when they
get round to digging up the waste. This is a very important health issue, and we
would like some information as to how they propose to do it!
John Stephenson
4•