HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-28-93 `TFt GOORA1"{ O T°hi TOWN ~9~IGAS7L~
DN: IWAPH5.GPA
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee ~1~~~
Date: Monday, February 1, 1993 G' P~' ' ~ 3
Dy-Lam #
Report ~ PD 2 ^ --93- File ~ Pln . 17.4. 3
Subject: INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY DURHAM REGION LANDFILL SITE SEARCH
STEP 5 - SHORT LIST OF CANDIDATE SITES
FILE: PLN. 17.4.3
-
~rr~rrt~nc~ati~~~:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-28-93 be received;
2. THAT this Report be forwarded to the Interim Waste Authority and
the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of the Environment, as the
response of the Town of Newcastle to the IWA Durham Region Landfill
Site Search; and
3. THAT Mrs. Grier and the Interim Waste Authority be requested to
give serious consideration to the recommendations contained in this
Report; and
4. THAT the Durham Region Planning Department, Mrs. Helen MacDonald,
Rev. David Black, and any delegation be forwarded a copy of this
report and: a copy of Councl1s decision:.-- --: ----- -
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 On November 20, 1992, the Town received from the Interim Waste
Authority (IWA), Environmental Assessment (EA) Document III
(The Short List of Candidate Sites) for the Durham Region
Landfill Site Search. The IWA identified a Candidate Site
(Site KK2) in Part Lots 11 and 12, Concessions 2 and 3, former
Township of Clarke. This Candidate Site more or less
corresponds to the lands subject of Laidlaw's Major Expansion
Proposal. The Site would also displace a 40 ha (100~acre)
dairy farming operation operated by the Stapleton family (see
Attachment No. 1).
1.2 On November 23, 1992, Council resolved to refer the EA
Document to Staff for fulN~~
~ sessment and preparation of a
,n~E~ ~ '~EG, .
RYAS IS PPIMEU CN RECYCLED PAPER
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 2
report to be submitted to the General Purpose and
Administration Committee within the 120 day review period set
out by the IWA.
1.3 On December 3, 1992, the Town also received from the IWA a
copy of their Discussion Paper entitled 'Managing the Impact
of Landfill: A Commitment to Fair Compensation'. On December
14, 1992, Council referred this document to Staff for review
and comment in conjunction with the report on the EA Document..
1.4 On December 7, 1992, Mrs. Helen MacDonald made a presentation.
to Committee in which she noted that the search for and
establishment of a "mega dump" is contrary to the province's
objectives for a "conserver society'. She advocated a Waste
(Resource) Processing Program in which a number of measures,
including community based recycling, composting and storage
facilities, a drastic reduction in the volume of waste
produced, and the storage instead of disposal of potentially
recyclable materials, would reduce the need for large landfill
site s_ Mrs . MacDonald requested_ the__ Town to_._.__endorse.._ the_.
concept of Waste (Resource) Processing and further, that the
Town request the provincial government to require the IWA to
review the concept as part of the Environmental Assessment
process. On December 14, 1992, Council directed Staff to
address Mrs. MacDonald's letter in the Town's response to the
IWA. Mrs. MacDonald's submission forms Attachment No. 2 to
this report.
1.5 On January 11, 1993, Council considered a letter from Reverend
David Black in which he stated that Site, KK2 fails to meet
minimal environmental and social standards. In particular, he
noted that the establishment of a landfill on Site KK2 would
have a significant negative impact on the quality of life of
area residents, and would displace the dairy operation
9g~1:'-~~2~-~^_~'. ~--n a 1'-E~~'° ~J=s7°~CJ~°~~r~rai- i~nc ~f mho Ci-ar~1 c~pn
family. The letter urged Council to request the IWA to
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 3
eliminate Site KK2 from the Short List. Council directed
Staff to address Rev. Black's letter in the Town's response to
the IWA. Rev. Black's letter forms Attachment No. 3 to this
report.
1.6 This Report focuses on three major topics:
comments on Bill 143, the Waste Management Act;
comments on the process employed by the IWA in Steps 1
through 5 to arrive at the Short List of Candidate Sites;
comments on the Compensation document released by the
IWA.
2. BILL 143, THE WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT
2.1 Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, establishes the legal
framework within which the IWA is conducting the landfill site
search in Durham Region, as well as the Regions of Peel and
Metro/York. Council has previously forwarded comments to the
provincial government on Bill 143 through its review and
approval of Report ADMIN. 2-92 (January 20, 1992 Committee
.meeting). This Report specifically examines Bill 143 in the
contextof r~ndidat_e__Site___KK2____and___also___in___the _context__of_ th_e__
submissions from Mrs. MacDonald and Rev. Black.
2.2 Full Exemption from Municipal Control
2.2.1 Bill 143 continues the IWA as a Crown agency. As a Crown
agency, the IWA is only subject to those provincial acts and
by-laws passed thereunder which contain a specific provision
binding the Crown. Therefore, as a strict legal matter, the
IWA is not required to comply with the Municipal Act, the
Planning Act, the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, and .
municipal by-laws passed thereunder, inasmuch as these acts do
not contain such a provision. However, as a matter of policy,
the IWA should commit itself now to complying with all these
laws on the same basis any private body is required to do so.
2.2.2 Th:. ~~~~mpt~:,n f~cr, tY:s pr ~.~~:-s s-f }hs ^_~.,n~.~:~=*~ ir•:~e-s-t_
in the IWA, if it chooses to do so as a matter of policy, the
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 4
legal authority to sidestep the local planning process and
establish a Durham Region landfill site in the Town without
complying with either the Official Plan or the
Zoning By-law, or being subject to the review and public
consultation process that would normally. accompany such
applications.
2.2.3 As noted earlier, the KK2 Candidate Site is essentially the
same as Laidlaw's Major Expansion Proposal. Laidlaw has been
advised by both the Town and the Region that Official Plan
Amendment and Rezoning applications would be required for
their Major Expansion Proposal. By identifying the Laidlaw
Expansion lands as a Candidate Site, the IWA is, in effect,
exempting the Laidlaw Expansion Proposal from the full
requirements of the Planning Act., This represents an
circumvention of the planning approvals process that the
residents and Council of the Town of Newcastle quite
reasonably expected would occur with respect to the issue of
establishing a major landfill on the Laidlaw lands.
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IS URGED TO AMEND BILL 143 TO
PROVIDE THAT THE INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY BE SUBJECT TO THE
FULL PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT, THE PLANNING ACT, THE
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM ACT, AND BY-LAWS PASSED
THEREUNDER. PENDING THE PASSING OF THESE AMENDMENTS, THE IWA
IS URGED TO COMPLY WITH ALL PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL LAWS AS
A MATTER OF POLICY ON THE SAME BASIS AS ANY PRIVATE BODY.
2.3 Partial Exemption From the Environmental Assessment Act'
2.3.1 The Environmental Assessment Act' (EAA) contains provisions
binding the Crown and its agencies to the requirements of the
Act. However, Bill 143 exempts .the environmental assessment
undertaken by the IWA for the landfill site search from
complying with the full requirements of the EAA. These
' ~ o~~~ l ~ -~ of a l tnrna~ i ~~oc
-+__ ~-~-- "'Z"m"'~iE ;E ~ ~c.te t: ch ~vcrr.~e.~~c.n
to the landfill waste disposal site.
X81
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 5
2.3.2 The exemption provided the IWA by Bill 143 from undertaking a
full assessment of alternatives to the landfilling option is
short-sighted and inconsistent with the objectives of a
"conserver society" being espoused by the provincial
government. The IWA should be required to examine
alternatives to landfilling, one of which could be the concept
of Waste (Resource) Processing.
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IS URGED TO AMEND BILL 143 TO REMOVE
THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED THE IWA FROM THE FULL REQUIREMENTS OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
IS FURTHER URGED TO REQUIRE THE IWA TO REVIEW THE OPTION OF
WASTE (RESOURCE) PROCESSING AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FOR THE LANDFILL SITE SEARCH.
2.3.3 It is also worth noting that the existing Laidlaw landfill was
established without the benefit of any comprehensive
environmental review, and that the Major Expansion Proposal
represents the expansion of the existing landfill onto
, _ adjacent lands . It s_ the _pol icy_ of___ the._ Ministry of_.__ the_.
Environment to require all private sector waste management
projects to be subject to the requirements of the EAA.
Council has repeatedly requested. the provincial government to
make the Laidlaw Infill Proposal and the Laidlaw Major
Expansion Proposal subject to the full provisions of the
Environmental Assessment Act (EAA).
2.3.4 By identifying the Laidlaw expansion lands as Candidate Site
KK2, Bill 143 in effect, exempts the Laidlaw Major Expansion
Proposal site from the full environmental approval
requirements of the EAA if it is acquired and developed as a
landfill by the IWA This represents a further circumvention
of the environmental approvals process that the residents and
Council were led to believe would occur with respect to the
i88t:e ~L aS±'~bli8ti3~~':'~ ~ ~T'.~j^_~' ~:12'_,7f j l l r~r, mho T.a i ~Z4' l anrac
ll
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 6
THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REQUESTS THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT TO
REQUIRE ANY PROPOSED LANDFILLS LOCATED ON THE LANDS OWNED BY
LAIDLAW WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE FULL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT.
2.4 Usuruina of Municipal Authority
2.4.1 Bill 143 empowers the Ontario Municipal Board to close any
municipal road for the purposes of establishing a landfill
site. The Act also empowers the IWA to expropriate land for
the purpose of establishing, operating, managing, altering or
improving a landfill.
2.4.2 Candidate Site KK2 is bisected by the unopened road allowance
between Concessions 2 and 3. This unopened original road
allowance is also required by Laidlaw for their Major
Expansion Proposal. In November 1990, Laidlaw's solicitor
formally requested the Town to close the unopened road
allowance and advised of Laidlaw's interest in purchasing the
road allowance at such time as it is closed. Council resolved
to deny Lai X11 aw's_request at ~t meeting ofJanuary ,14, 1:99.:1.
2.4.3 Similarly, the IWA has the power to not only expropriate the
unopened road allowance between Concessions 2 and 3, but as
well, expropriate municipal road allowances for the purposes
of installing and operating a leachate forcemain. Official
Plan Amendment Application 89-97/D submitted by Laidlaw
proposed the construction of a leachate forcemain from the
existing landfill and the proposed Major Expansion to the
Graham Creek Water Pollution Control Plant in Newcastle
Village. On January 27, 1992, Council resolved to recommend
to the Region that the Official Plan Amendment application be
denied. Regional Council subsequently denied the application.
~ . '~-'~ It i~ ~~~3~ +-i.c,.;- '-ham p~'isi~:~c ~-$~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 c:.~ L;°r.~~~~.i:~
the Town's authority to deal with its lands as it deems
~I
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 7
appropriate and would overturn Council's stated positions with
respect to the unopened road allowance and the leachate
forcemain.
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT I5 URGED TO AMEND BILL 143 TO REMOVE
THE POWERS TO REQUIRE CLOSURE OF MUNICIPAL ROADS VESTED IN THE
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD AND IN THE INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY TO
EXPROPRIATE MUNICIPAL ROAD ALLOWANCES, IN THAT THESE POWERS
REPRESENT AN UNREASONABLE USURPING OF THE MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY.
3. LANDFILL SITE SEARCH SCREENING PROCESS
3.1 Summary of Process
3.1.1 The Durham Region Landfill Site Search is being undertaken by
the IWA in six steps, as follows:
Step 1 - Primary screening (constraint analysis);
Step 2 - Secondary screening (constraint analysis).;
Step 3 - Identification of initial long list of
candidate sites;
Step:: 4 - Identification - o-f the final 1,ong list. _~f
sites. The final long list, which contained
17 candidate sites, was released by the IWA in
June 1992.
Step 5 - Identification of a short list of candidate
sites. This Step was completed with the
announcement of the short list in November
1992.
Step 6 - Identification of a preferred site.
3.1.2 .The IWA has identified five candidate sites on the Short List
for the Durham Region Landfill Site Search. Four of the sites
(Sites Tl, EE4, EE10, and EE11) are located in the Town of
Pickering, with the fifth site being KK2. All of the sites in
Pickering are located on lands owned by the provincial
yvvc~,~~«c~~l.. 3i~~~ Ei~, LL10 u..a LL11 arL all lcaatcd cr la::ds
identified by both the 1976 and the 1991 Durham Regional
-- j~~
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 8
Official Plan as part of the proposed Seaton Community. Site
T1 is located on lands identified as an agricultural preserve
by the provincial government in an announcement made by the
Minister of Agriculture and Food on January 19, 1993.
3.1.3 Site KK2 is located northwest of the hamlet of Newtonville.
As indicated by Attachment No. 1, this Candidate Site would .
displace 40 ha (100 acres) of a dairy farm owned by the
Stapleton family. Site KK2 also occupies most of the lands
subject to the Major Expansion Proposal of Laidlaw Waste
Systems (Durham) Ltd.
3.1.4 The screening process has focused on assessing each candidate
site in terms of specific Criteria Groups. In Step 5, twelve
Criteria Groups were used, with individual weights being
assigned to each group to reflect its importance relative to
all other Criteria Groups. Within each Criteria Group,
weightings were also assigned to each indicator and sub-
indicator to reflect their relative importance.
3.1.5 The table shown on Attachment No. 4 illustrates the IWA's
ranking of the five Candidate Sites on the Short List within
the larger Long List of Sites. The table also indicates the
weight assigned to each Criteria Group. Of the three highest
.weighted Criteria Groups, Site KK2 ranked the worst of the
five Short List sites for Geology/Hydrogeology and
Agriculture. However, Site KK2 was determined to have the
least impact in terms of the Social Criterion. This ranking
is examined later in this report. Overall, Site KK2 was
ranked last among the five Short List sites.
3.1.6 Specific comments related to the Criteria Groups and the
screening process employed by the IWA are presented below.
s.~ t~eulc~uvinvaivuculvvv
3.2.1 The Geology/Hydrogeology Criteria Group was assigned a
X85
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 9
weighting of 20, the highest of all the Criteria Groups. In
Step 5, four evaluative criteria were used, as follows:
1. Compare potential for site to provide natural geologic
.protection from leachate.
2. Compare potential for site to provide natural hydraulic
protection from leachate.
3. Compare potential for predicting groundwater migration
pathways.
4. Compare potential for disrupting groundwater supplies and
resources.
These four evaluative criteria were determined by the IWA to
be of equal importance, and therefore were all assigned a
weighting of 1.0.
3.2.2 Staff agree that all four evaluative criteria are important.
However, it would not appear appropriate to assign Criteria 3
and 4 equal weight with Criteria 1 and 2. Specifically,
Criterion 3 (potential to predict groundwater migration
pathways) is not as important as having a site which is
geologically and hydraul-ical-l-y~ut~b-l-e f-0rla~c~~i~l-i~g, aG
measured by Criteria 1 and 2.
3.2.3 Similarly, Criterion 4 (disruption of groundwater supplies)
should not be weighted equally with Criteria 1 and 2.
Criteria 4 is based primarily on maximizing the distance of
the landfill from aquifers that supply water and users of that
water. Although protection of groundwater resources is
significant, to a large extent it is dependent on the ability
of the site to provide natural protection from leachate
contamination as measured by Criteria 1 and 2. In this sense,
by assigning Criteria 4 the same weight as Criteria 1 and 2,
the IWA is reducing the emphasis on ensuring that no
groundwater contamination will occur. As well, it also
increases the potential for an engineered landfill to be
1vvuLCa iii a ~i~.c wlii<.li ~lvGs~ ~~t rr'~:fa~a~, the ':.2~-~ E~.'.3~s
natural attenuation.
-- `)r}~
REPORT NO.; PD-28-93 PAGE 10
THE INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY I5 URGED TO ASSIGN A SIGNIFICANTLY
LOWER WEIGHTING TO CRITERIA 3 AND 4 UNDER THE GEOLOGY/
HYDROGEOLOGY GROUP IN RELATION TO THE WEIGHTINGS ASSIGNED TO
CRITERIA 1 AND 2.
3.2.4 During Step 5, limited site-specific information on geology/
hydrogeology was used by the IWA to evaluate and reduce the
• Long List of 15 sites to a Short List of five sites.
Accordingly, once detailed site specific information is
collected, the four sites in Pickering, which are all located
in the same general area, could collectively be deemed to be
less suitable than KK2. .Site KK2 was ranked fifth by the IWA
under this Criterion because of the low potential of the site
to provide natural geologic and hydraulic protection from
leachate.
3.2.5 However, the process set up by the IWA does not permit the
opportunity to re-evaluate other sites on the Long List of
Candidate Sites, such as T5, L2, L3, T6 and B1, which from a
-~e-o-l-og~-j-I~yd-r-0ge-o-logy p-erspective, were-a-ll~qua-l-l-y ra-rakedwith_
Site KK2. Thus, the failure of the IWA to collect detailed
site-specific geologic/hydrogeologic information on the Long
List Sites could result in Site KK2 being selected by default,
even though the IWA acknowledges it does not provide
sufficient natural protection from leachate.
THE INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY IS URGED TO OBTAIN DETAILED SITE
SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC/HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION FOR THOSE
SITES IDENTIFIED ON THE LONG LIST OF CANDIDATE SITES WHICH
WERE RANKED EQUALLY WITH SITE KK2 UNDER THE GEOLOGY/
HYDROGEOLOGY CRITERION GROUP.
n
3.3 Surface Water
3.3.1 The IWA assigned the Surface Water Criterion Group a weighting
~--- .
Ul ~ , llld It 1111 1 L V11C V.C`u't.11C .Lt im .Ji. .1....n v .~1 }L"' -
However, there appears to be a fundamental inconsistency in
f
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 11
seeking natural geological and hydraulic protection from
leachate under the highly ranked Geology/Hydrogeology
Criterion Group, while suggesting that a landfill site could
be located adjacent to a surface water body with minimal
impact on surface water quality. By assigning such a low
weighting to the Surface Water Criterion, the IWA appears to
be placing a much greater emphasis on providing protection
from leachate contamination through an engineered landfill
design rather than through natural protection.
3.3.2 In this regard, Site KK1 (which includes the existing Laidlaw
landfill located immediately adjacent to Graham Creek) and
Site KK2 were both ranked as having the least impact under the
Surface Water Criterion of the sites on the Long List. Acres
International has previously advised the Town that leachate
from the existing landfill is escaping virtually untreated
into Graham Creek because of the inherent unsuitability of on-
site soils to attenuate the leachate. There is little reason
to believe that leachate from a new landfill on Site KK1 could.
- also--be prev~rated-from esc-apn-g i-nto Graham Creek. As well,-:
both the Ministry of the Environment Approvals Branch and the
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority have noted that Site
KK2 is located on a height of land which drains into Graham
Creek. Thus, any landfill at Site KK2 would rely heavily on
an engineered landfill design to protect adjacent surface
water from contamination.
THE INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY IS URGED TO INCREASE THE WEIGHTING
ASSIGNED TO THE SURFACE WATER CRITERION GROUP IN STEP 5, AND
IN STEP 6, TO INCREASE THE EMPHASIS ON NATURAL GEOLOGIC
PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE EMPHASIS ON ENGINEERED LANDFILL
DESIGN.
3.4 Agr77iculture
.3 4 1 UilU~L ,L~1C AC~L 11~U11.Ui C l:1 1 LCL 1Q, L1iC tYY CS o~.i ccaa cw.i lasyla
quality agricultural land and operations with the exception of
!F)~~
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 12
land within the 'urban shadow', provincially or municipally
owned land, or land designated for non-agricultural use in an
Official Plan.
3.4.2 The IWA defines 'urban shadow' as an area in which land uses
are in transition away from traditional agricultural uses, and
the long term viability of agriculture is in doubt. Census
data at the enumeration level from 1986 was used to determine
areas of urban shadow. The average size of the enumeration
areas used was 7,038 ha (17,390 acres).
3.4.3 Census data is based on the use of land rather than the
potential of the land to sustain agriculture. As well, the
boundaries of the enumeration areas represent arbitrary
boundaries within which viable and stable agricultural
operations can be defined as urban shadow. Additionally, the
large size of the enumeration area has resulted in stable
agricultural areas being arbitrarily .mixed in with rural
transition lands.
3.4.4 The lands identified for Site KK2 have been identified by the
IWA as urban shadow, including 40 ha (100 acres) of a viable
and stable farm operation which has been run by the Stapleton
family since 1850. The IWA ranks Site KK2 as last under the
Agriculture criteria, noting that the potential impacts to
agriculture for this site are greater than for the other four
sites.
3.4.5 The lands northwest of the hamlet of Newtonville, and in
particular the KK2 Site, are not within what could reasonably
be defined as an 'urban shadow'. The 1991 Durham Regional
Official Plan, which presents the future pattern of
development in the Town of Newcastle well into the next
century, does not envision urban development anywhere in the
viuiiiiLy vL l.lic ~~~2 oiLc. Tl.~ 1~~A tr.€ .;ir:3:.~~ ~ a~:
U 7
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 13
'urban shadow' to diminish the significance of the viable and
stable agricultural operations on Site KK2.
THE INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY IS ADVISED THAT THE U5E OF THE
TERM 'URBAN SHADOW' IS MISLEADING AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO~
JUSTIFY THE DISPLACEMENT OF A VIABLE AND STABLE AGRICULTURAL
OPERATION ON SITE KK2.
3.5 Social ImUact Assessment
3.5.1 A total of ten criteria were used in Step 5 to determine the
social impact of each Candidate Site. These criteria, along
with their relative weighting and the rationale given by the
IWA for the weighting, are indicated in Attachment No. 5.
3.5.2 Of particular concern is the weighting assigned to Criterion
7 (compare potential to disrupt residents along haul routes;
weight - 0.54) relative to the weighting assigned to Criterion
2 (compare potential to disrupt residents in the primary
impact study zone off-site; weight - 1.00). The IWA's
-- -: ,-rationale for, ass-gnna ~r~te~o~~ the hi-ghest--weighting s_
that residents in the primary impact study zone (within 500 m
of the landfill) will experience a greater magnitude of
disruption than other residents, including those displaced by
the landfill who will be compensated for their displacement
and who will not have to .live with the day-to day-disruptive
effects of landfilling operations for 20-plus years.
3.5.3 Similarly, Criterion 8 (compare potential to disrupt
institutional, community, and recreational features along haul
routes; weight 0.24) is weighted significantly less .than
Criterion 5 (compare potential to disrupt institutional,
community and recreational features in the primary impact zone
off-site; weight 0.44). The IWA notes that the disruption
along access routes ((``could{{ create? prob(`l em{ s for patrons who u7s~e
Vl tCIY V11 L~1C.~C LQ1.+1111.1C~, 1?ut~~l ul l~llct thin a.ll~...
disruptive effects of truck traffic are anticipated to be less
~~~U
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 14
than the disruptive effects of landfilling operations in the
primary impact zone.
3.5.4 The IWA appears to have unfairly discounted the impact to
residents along the haul route resulting from vehicle traffic
travelling to and from the landfill. The IWA has estimated
that, in the landfill's first year of operation, approximately
350 vehicles per day would travel to the landfill, 70% of
which would be trucks. This would result in 700 vehicle trips
(490 truck trips) per day along the access route into the
landfill which, over an eleven hour operating day, translates
into 64 vehicles (45 trucks) per hour, or slightly more than
one per minute.
3.5.5 'The disruptive effects of this volume of vehicle and truck
traffic on any residents along the access route and their use
of community facilities would be substantial and similar to
that suffered by residents in the primary impact zone.
Accordingly, the weightings assigned to Criterion 7 and
rri-teri~r R sh_auld hA adjusted upward to ref lest this- ---
similarity in impact. Staff note, in fact, that the
weightings for Criteria 7 and 8 were reduced from the weights
of 0.81 and 0.35 respectively, as originally proposed by the
IWA in April 1992.
3.5.6 The disruptive effects of vehicle traffic travelling to and
from the landfill are more significant for Newtonville than
for any of the other communities located along proposed access
routes to the Candidate Sites. The IWA has identified 119
affected households (369 residents) along the access route to
Site KK2. Only Site T1 has more affected households (220
households) but that access route would not take the vehicles
directly through any communities. As well, the IWA identifies
four community facilities along the access route to Site KK2 -
idewLviivili~ rul~li~: ~~livul, Yn~ brvv~li r•~i°~e-~~~., :T-^'"~~r~ 113
United Church, and Lakeview Cemetery. Three of the four
91
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 15
Candidate Sites located in Pickering have no community
features along the access routes, while the fourth site also
has four community features identified.
THE INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY IS URGED TO INCREASE THE RELATIVE
WEIGHTINGS ASSIGNED TO CRITERION 7 AND CRITERION 8 FOR SOCIAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT THAT THE
DISRUPTIVE EFFECTS OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC ALONG HAUL ROUTES ARE
SIMILAR TO THE DISRUPTIVE EFFECTS EXPERIENCED IN THE PRIMARY
IMPACT ZONE.
3.5.7 It is worthy of note that the consulting firm which undertook
the social impact assessment for the IWA, the Institute of
Environmental Research, also conducted the social impact
assessment for Laidlaw's Infill Proposal. The same firm also
coordinated the early stages of the public participation
process for the Laidlaw Major Expansion Proposal. It would
have been preferable in the public interest if the IWA had
retained a consultant with no previous connection with the KK2
- - - site to conduct the social- impact--assessment.
3.6 Transportation
3.6.1 Under this Criteria, the IWA examined. potential impacts
related to traffic safety and traffic operations along
proposed haul routes. Historic traffic data for the years
19.88 to 1990 were used. As well, data to the year 1996 was
projected where available and relevant. The IWA ranked Site
KK2 as having the least impact of the five Candidate Sites
under this Criteria.
3.6.2 It is not clear from the information presented if the
projected future data for Site KK2 accounted for .the
designated increase in Newtonville's population.
5y2
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 16
THE INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY IS URGED TO INCORPORATE THE
DESIGNATED FUTURE POPULATION INCREASE FOR NEWTONVILLE INTO ITS
ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FOR SITE KK2, IF
SUCH DATA HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN INCORPORATED.
3.7 Planned Land Use
3.7.1 .This Criterion, which the IWA has assigned a weighting of 2,
examines each Candidate Site in terms of its impact on land
uses designated in municipal Official Plans. The IWA notes
that Site KK2 is designated 'Permanent Agricultural Reserve'
and 'Major Open Space'. It is the position of the IWA that
there is no meaningful way to quantify a non-development
planned land use such as agriculture, and thus does not regard
agriculture as a planned land use. The IWA has ranked Site
KK2 to have the least impact under the Planned Land Use
Criteria.
THE INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY IS ADVISED THAT THE TOWN OF
NEWCASTLE STRONGLY DISAGREES WITH THE POSITION THAT
AGRICULTURE IS -NOT A PLANNED -LAND- -USE. AGRICULTURE--IS -AN- ----
INTEGRAL PART OF THE TOWN'S ECONOMIC BASE AND A SUBSTANTIAL
PORTION OF THE TOWN'S RURAL AREA HAS BEEN DESIGNATED FOR
AGRICULTURE IN BOTH THE 1976 AND THE 1991 DURHAM REGIONAL
OFFICIAL PLAN.
3.7.2 Sites EE4, EE10, and EE11 are all located on lands designated
for the new Seaton community, while Site T1 is located on
lands recently identified by the provincial government as an
agricultural reserve. All four sites are located on land
owned by the provincial government.
3.7.3 In Environmental Assessment Document II Part 1 (April 1992),
the IWA indicated that "the Land Use evaluation criteria are
desiyneu ~u i~iy ct1?u civvi~l ~liC :3~a~-~?i~-~~F- b:a~ ~ ~:'ri~
~r~
can not be determined whether the Seaton development or the
~~5
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 17
landfill will get precedence if they both choose the same
location." Similarly, the Ministry of Housing comments
presented in Environmental Assessment Document III (November
1992) indicate that "two of the potential uses (for the North
Pickering Land Assembly) are a model community at Seaton and
a long-term strategy to preserve agricultural lands. Given
the extent of the government's interest in the lands and the
planning activity which had been ongoing, it would be
unfortunate if the value of the lands were somehow discounted
because they are in public ownership or because there has not
been a firm decision on their future."
3.7.4 The IWA has not yet indicated how the recent establishment of
the agricultural preserve in Pickering will affect the
landfill site search. There is the possibility that the lands
in the agricultural preserve will be accorded a greater level
of protection in the site search process than other lands
designated for agricultural use in municipal Official Plans.
As well, the provincial government has not provided any
----indication__as_ to__whether Site__T1__wi11__rsmain on___or__be_ removed_
from the Short List of Candidate Sites in light of the
establishment of the agricultural preserve. Any move to
remove Site T1 from the Short List would distort the site
selection process.
3.7.4 A further possibility exists, in light of the comments of both
the IWA and the Ministry of Housing, that the provincial
government will also declare special interest on the Seaton
lands. Such action could potentially eliminate some or all of
Candidate Sites EE4, EE10 and EE11 from the IWA's Short List.
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IS URGED TO GIVE DEFINITIVE
ASSURANCES THAT IT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE SITE SELECTION
PROCESS BEING UNDERTAKEN BY THE INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY
TiaR$U~-H-T:IL' DL'CL~RA'TI32: ^t1 CT~L~!'~TTL ~N-~FsST 9~1 TLiE I-9~.
CANDIDATE SITES LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF PICKERING.
y
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 18
4. IWA COMPENSATION DOCUMENT
4.1 On December 3, 1992, the IWA released a document entitled
'Managing the Impact of Landfill: A Commitment to Fair
Compensation'. The document outlines the general framework
the IWA intends to use in providing compensation. In this
regard, the document provides the following commitments:
to negotiate a compensation settlement with affected
property owners which would make expropriation
unnecessary;
property value protection for properties near a new
landfill but outside the expropriation area. This means
that owners of properties with an defined impact area
will be compensated for any loss in value from landfill
construction and operation;
to involve the host community in monitoring site
operations, and to make royalty payments to the local
government of the host municipality.
4.2 The document states that the IWA will work with the affected
communities "_to develop an___mpact management__program__that__will_
both satisfy regulatory requirements for safe and
environmentally sound landfilling and meet the community's
needs and preferences." However, the document provides very
few specific proposals on which specific comments could be
made; for example, the definition of the impact zone in which
compensation would be provided. As well, no assurance is
given by the IWA that an agreement would not be imposed on a
municipality or its residents if a mutually agreeable
compensation agreement could not be negotiated.
THE INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY IS ADVISED THAT THE TOWN OF
NEWCASTLE WILL NOT PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THEIR COMPENSATION
DOCUMENT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ON COMPENSATION
AND IMPACT MANAGEMENT ARE FORTHCOMING.
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 pAr,F, 1g
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 The Durham Landfill Site Search being conducted by the IWA
under the auspices of Bill 143 is depriving the residents and
the Council of the Town of Newcastle many of the opportunities
for input and protection of interests normally provided by
provincial legislation. Bill 143 should be amended to restore
the rights normally accorded to residents and local
governments in Ontario, and specifically to require the IWA to
investigate Waste (Resource) Processing as an alternative to
landfilling as part of the Environmental Assessment for the
landfill site search.
5.2 The IWA should reexamine some of the basic assumptions used in
their screening process, in particular the methodology for
defining 'urban shadow'. As well, the weightings of many of
the criteria used by th.e IWA in their evaluation of Candidate
Sites should be adjusted, in particular the weightings for
impacts along access haul routes under the Social Criterion
Group.
5.3 The potential exists for the provincial government to distort
the site selection process by declaring provincial interest on
the lands in the North Pickering Land Assembly.
5.4 The IWA's Compensation Document does not provide sufficient
detail to permit the Town of Newcastle to provide its comments
at this time.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
- ~ --~ 0 ~ a, ~ l~ ~ ~ .
,~~`rankliri~~lu, M. C. I . P. Lawrence E. Kotse f ~
~--Director of Planning Chief Administratv~~
and Development Officer
JAS*DC*FW*df
*Attach
27 January 1993 _ c
REPORT NO.: PD-28-93 PAGE 20
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Mrs. Helen MacDonald
R.R. # 1
Newtonville, Ontario
LOA 1J0
Rev. David Black
2035 Newtonville Road
Newtonville, Ontario
LOA 1J0.
r~)
Attachment No. 1
14 13 12 II 10 9 8 7
CONCESSION ROAD 4
li ~ ~ID~E'D
I ~ / -
C.Bt~_
I ~ ~ ~ I M
I~'~P~'. , r
y . _ ~ -~ Z
~1 /f/ _ I I 0
I I Ilr N / ` ` v~.
' ~I ~ _ Z ,
I - ~
II
. _ _ ~ _ _ _ CONCESSION RD.3 ~
I (
~ I o
II -- ~ ~ ~ II N
I I o , & i
II ~ : _ ,I ~ a I~ ~
II z o II U
I Z
o 0
I ~ ~ I Z
I w ~ w I O
~ a w z II U
I) ~ ~ II
(I 3 ~ I ~ NEWTONVILLE ~
.ice _ _- ------ - - - -
HILL_ST 1
++r
HIGHWAY 2 I I
I
I ~ j l Z
~I ~ ~ ~ ~I ~
I
II HIGHWAY 401 ~ U
' i ----,-t--- ---- i i ~ ~
. I
II ~i I i~ II'
CONCESSION ROAD 1 ~ ' r
STAPLETON FARM
~ EXISTING LAIDLAW LANDFILL SITE
~riririrr~ LAIDLAW MAJOR EXPANSION PROPOSAL
I:<::::~«:«;<~ CANDIDATE LW.A. SITE KK2
---= PROPOSED I.W.A. ACCESS ROUTE
Attachment No: 2
WASTE [RESOURCE) PROCESSING
Presentation to Town of Newcastle
General Purpose and Administration Committee
07 December 1992
°Respectfully submitted by: Helen MacDonald
R. R. #1
Newtonvilley~N
LOA 1J0
(916)983-9667
Recently, the Province of Ontario announced that tt~e
Stapleton farm/Laidlaw Dump in Newtonville (known as KK2) is on the
short list of proposed mega dumps in the Region of Durham.
Along with all of the well=known environmental, social,
economic and other reasons as to why the site is inappropriate, any
proposal of a mega dump, with a potential lifespan of twenty years,
is outdated, AND counter to the province's own "conserver society"
. ob3ectives. I refer, specifically, to the province's goal of 25~
waste reduction by the end of 1992, and 50~ reduction by the year
2000.
In its efforts. to move towards "conserver society"
objectives, the province has banned incineration and export of GTA
waste to distant communities. The province, however, misses the
mark in the final analysis by permitting the "out-of-sight-out-of-
mind" approach to continue through the siting of mega dumps.
° Garbage dumps have been the place where we throw away
leftover 'waste'. When we consider the waste management hierarchy,
we speak of: REDUCE, RE-USE and RECYCLE. Clearly, we are not
talking about 'waste'. We are talking about 'resources'.
Someone once said: "Solid wastes are only raw materials
we're too stupid to use".
We have achieved some sucess with the blue box programme,
X99
07 December 1992 page 2
but there is much more that can be done.
Waste [Resource] Processing is not new technology. Some
American communities have implemented Waste Processing programmes:
High Point, NC; Newport Beach, CA; Seattle, WA which as of 1989
• .achieved 39~ reduction with a goal of 60~ reduction by 1998.
How is this achieved? A multifaceted approach ,includes:
1. Community-based siting of recycling (sorting), composting and
storage facilities.
2. Sorting - at source by household, commercial and industrial
generators. Co-mingled collection and transport to central sorting
site is another option.
3. Education/Promotion - intensive community-based programme must
be implemented.
9. Storage - instead of disposal, of FOTENTIALLX recyclable
materials. ,
5. "Carrots" - eg. arranging markets for commercial/industrial
sources and end uses.
6. "Sticks" - legal controls (eg. bans on types of packaging);
- mandatory recycling & penalties and/or refusal to
collect waste; ~
• -implement re-usable/recycling packaging regulations.
Material tResourceJ~ Processing is not without its
drawbacks, but most of them can be worked out.
What about the benefits?
- Air, water and land pollution is reduced.
OT becember 1992 Fage 3
- Energy and water consumption are reduced.
- Simpler technology reduces capital costs for siting of processing
facility as well as start-up and operational/maintenance costs.
These facilities are not likely to become quickly outdated.
- Intensive implementation of 3R programmes reduces excessive
volumes of waste requiring disposal. Any disposal site required
for remaining material would be very small, allowing for
flexibility in siting (eg. threat to foodlands is reduced).
- The ongoing, successful operation of a waste [resource]
processing facility is not dependant upon "volumes". of waste (as is
the case in energy-from-waste, energy-derived=fuel [incineratiot~l
operations). Nor are high 'tippage fees' required to offset
construction and cost of operation.
- Smaller, .multiple sites for processing facilities would be
located closer to areas of generation.
- Economic development opportunities through research, development
and marketing would abound - and they would likely exceed those
furnished by tippage fees. Jobs for the unskilled would be
created.
What needs to happen?
FIRST - Radical reduction in volumes of waste generated cannot be
achieved until products, packages, and materials are designed for
durability, re-use and recycling. For example: standardized
refillable containers that can be interchangeably used by multiple
producers (eg. implement the federal Packaging Protocol as
~J~
07 December 1992 Page 9
regulation, not guidelines).
SECOND - Cradle-to-grave management of resources and finished
products would.need to be implemented in order to maximize 3R's
approach.
THIRD - Massive education 'programmes must be implemented.
. Implementation of a Waste [Resource) Programme cannot
occur 'over night'. There will be transitional stages.
Present technology (eg, blue box) will be the building
blocks while ongoing sustainable education (lifestyle change), and
transitional technology will eventually lead us to success.
Legislation, regulations and enforcement must become priorities.
As long as disposal is an option for 'management' of
'wastes', we are not adequately dealing with the garbage 'problem'.
If we were completely honest - mega dumps are as ut~desireable as
incineration and export.
The Province needs to be encouraged to pursue the
'conserver society' objective. The Waste [Resource] Processing
option must be a part of the Environmental Assessment process
undertaken by the Interim Waste Authority, with the view to
eliminate the need for mega dumps.
I ask the Town of Newcastle to show the Province some
leadership by endorsing the concept of Waste [Resource) Processing
at~d requesting full review of this option. There is no need for
the Stapleton family to lose their farm, and your support of this
concept could make a difference to the Stapleton family, to our
community, and to better management of waste 'resources'.
7 '_I
Rev. David Black
2035 Newtonville Road
Newtonville, Ontario
LOA 1J0 -- (416) 786-3190
December 28, 1992 File: L21228H.IWA
Ms Diane Hamre, Mayor ,
Town of Newcastle____ _
-..- -
~0 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3X2 y
Dear Ms Hamre:
R E: PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE :~K2
I urge you to insist that the Ontario Government instruct the Interim Waste Authority (IWA)
to remove proposed site KK2 from the Short List of potential landfill sites because repeated
tests and assessments, since 1984, have established beyond reasonable doubt that this site is
unsuitable and inappropriate for safe landfill usage as set out in provincial government .
guidelines.
As well as the very real threat of leaching from the potential site as a result of the topogra-
phy and soil formation, residents are concerned for the safety of children attending the school
which is on the main route from No. 401 Highway to the proposed site; as well as noise,
odour, and other pollution of our residential communities.
There is no question that selection of this location would significantly adversely affect the
quality of life for the residents of the immediate area, some of whom have lived on the same
.........properties... for generations.
In addition, selection of this site would also terminate an historic viable family-owned dairy
which has operated continuously on this location for 142 years by five generations of the
Stapleton family with every indication that it could continue as a working Heritage farm
indefinitely into the future. The publicly stated position of the Ontario Government on the
need to preserve viable farming land and the value of family heritage and traditions alone
should be enough to disqualify KKZ as a potential landfill site.
Acknowledging that landfill sites are still necessary pending the development of appropriate
alternative waste disposal solutions; site KK2 fails to meet minimal environmental and social
standards of safety and appropriateness.
I will support any pressure ;you can exert to eliminate KK2 as a potential dump site.
Respectfully submitted:
~9a
Attachment No: 4
DURHAM REGION
LANDFILL SITE SEARCH
SHORT LIST SITE RANKINGS
CRITERIA
Group Short List Site Names
T1 EE4 EE10 EE11 KK2
Geology/Hydro (20) 1 3 2 3 6
Agriculture (18) 5 2 1 2 9
Social (14) 5 13 13 5 1
Biology (11) 5 3 4 5 5
Transportation (8) 9 13 9 6 2
Economics (7) 10 3 1 1 8
Aviation (7) 1 1 1 1 1
Design & Operations (5) 1 7 8 1 9
Heritage (3) 4 11 11 1 8
Surface Water (3) 7 7 7 3 1
Archaeology (2) 13 5 5 2 5
Planned Land Use (2) 10 7 15 14 2
Overall _Ste Ranking......... 3 4 2 1 5
( ) Criteria group weight 1 - Lowest Impact
5 - Highest Impact
, ;
Attachment No.5
INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY LTD.
TABLE 5.2.10
Step 5 Evaluation Criteria Ranking and Weighting for Social
SOCIAL
Criterion Rank Rationale
Orders Weight2
1. Compare potential to 2 0.60 The social impact of displacement can be
displace residents on-site. (2) (0.90) serious, notwithstanding the financial
compensation provided for under the
Expropriation Act. At the same time, residents
who are displaced, unlike residents who reside in
the vicinity of the landfill site, are guaranteed
some measure of compensation and will be able
to live without the day-to-day disruptive effects
. of landfilling operations. For this reason, it was
ranked second and given a weight of 0.60.
2. Compare potential to 1 1.00 Residents in the primary impact study zone will
disrupt residents in the (1) (1.00) be more likely to experience a greater magnitude
primary impact study zone of disruption than residents elsewhere. For this
off-site, reason, this criterion was ranked first and given
a weight of 1.00.
3. Compare potential to 6 0.40 Residents in the secondary impact study zone
disrupt residents in the (7) (0.59) will likely be subject to fewer impacts than
.secondary impact study residents located in the primary impact study
zone off-site. zone or residents located along the access route,
or institutional community and recreation
features located in the primary impact study ~
zone. However, there will likely be ome
nuisance effects and some residents may feel
some stress or anxiety as a result of the
development of a landfill in their area. For these
reasons, this criterion was ranked sixth and given
an impact weight of 0.40.
4. Compare potential to 4 0.49 The displacement of institutional, community and
displace institutional, (5) (0.73) recreational features may have sign cant
community and recreational implications for the quality of life of residents in
features on-site. the vicinity of the landfill site and the
community at large. For this reason, this '
criterion was ranked fourth and given a weight
of 0.49.
5. Compare potential to 5 0.44 The disruption of institutional, community and
disrupt institutional, (6) (0.66) recreational features may lead to additional
community and recreational disruption of residents in the vicinity of the
features in the primary landfill site although disruption of such features
impact study zone off-site. is not likely to be as significant as their
displacement. For this reason, this criterion was
ranked fifth and given a weight of 0.44.
~~r ~ ~ EA Document III Page 5-99
INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY LTD.
TABLE 5.2.10
Step 5 Evaluation Criteria Ranking and Weighting for Social
(Continued)
SOCIAL
Criterion Rank Rationale •
Order' Weight2
6. Compare potential to 8 0.18 The disruption of instiwtional, community, and
disrupt instiwtional, (10) (0.21) recreational features may lead to disruption of
community and recreational facility users and operators in the vicinity of the
features in the secondary landfill site. However, the secondary impact
impact study zone off-site, study zone is likely to have the least negative
effects relative to other areas. For this reason,
this criterion was ranked eighth and given a
weight of 0.18.
7. Compare potential to 3 0.54 Residents along access routes may experience
disrupt residents along the (3) (0.81) the disruptive effects of increased truck traffic
access routes for hauling which could have serious implications for their
waste, day-to-day activities and quality of life.
However, these disruptive effects are not likely
to be as significant as the effects of landfilling
operations on residents in the primary impact
study zone. For this reason, this criterion was
ranked third and given a weight of 0.54.
8. Compare potential to 7 0.24 The disruption of instiwdonal, community and
disrupt institutional, (8) (0.35) recreational features along the access route could
community and recreational create problems for. residents who. use/rely on
features along the access such facilities. The disruptive effects of truck
routes for hauling waste. traffic along the access routes are anticipated to
be less than the disruptive effects of landfilling
operations in the primary impact swdy zone.
For this reason, this criterion was ranked seventh
and given a weight of 0.24.
9. Compare potential to 9 0.11 Residents affected by a road closure may have
disrupt residents along (3) (0.81) their day-to-day activities disrupted as well as
roads affected by local road experience the disruptive effects of added road
closure(s). traffic due to traffic diversion. It is anticipated
that these effects will be the same as those
experienced by residents along the access route.
For this reason, this criterion was also ranked
ninth and given a weight of 0.11.
~ L !~i
~1 ~ EA Document III Page 5-100
INTERIM WASTE AUTIIORI7'Y LTD.
TABLE 5.2.10
Step 5 Evaluation Criteria Ranking and Weighting for Social
(Continued)
SOCIAL
Criterion Rank Rationale
Order' Weightz
10. Compare potential to 9 0.11 ~ The disruption of institutional, community and
disrupt institutional, (8) (0.35) recreational features due to a road closure could
community and recreational create problems for users and facility operators
features along roads in the vicinity of the landfill site who use/rely on
affected by local road the feature, This disruptive effects are
closure(s). anticipated to be similar to those that residents
along the access route may experience. For
these reasons, this criterion was ranked ninth and
given a weight of 0.11.
' original rank order as per EA Document II Part 1 in brackets where applicable
a original weight as per EA Document 11 Part 1 in brackets where applicable ,
ray
~-~ ~ ~ EA Document III Page 5-101
I