HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-48-91 I 1111 CORPORATION OF I F1 lF TOWN OF NEWCAS FLI--'
DN: LAIDLAW.GPA REPORT
1'-))
Meeting General Purpose and Administration Committee File 6f PUI,(26 P L,
Date Monday, February 18, 1991 HeE, /I
Cry-Law fif
Rel)ort It PD"- 8---_9-1Fde 9 ORA 89-39/D; DEV 89-44
Subject OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 89-39/D
REZONING APPLICATION DEV 89-44
LAIDLAW INFILL PROPOSAL
PART LOTS 11 & 12, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE
Hecomi-nendailons
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD- 48-91 be received for information.
1. PURPOSE
1. 1 The purpose of this report is to advise Committee and Council of
the status of the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications
related to Laidlaw's Infill proposal.
2 . AGENCY COMMENTS
2 . 1 The comments of the Ministry of the Environment on the technical
reports submitted by Laidlaw in support of their application
pursuant to Part V of the Environmental Protection Act were
provided to Laidlaw and the Town on December 4, 1990 (Attachment
No. 1) . The Ministry, in their covering letter, noted that a number
of technical issues must be resolved, particularly with respect to
site hydrogeology.
2 .2 The Ministry of the Environment recommended to the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs that the application not be forwarded to the
Environmental Assessment Board until such time as the outstanding
issues are satisfied. By letter dated January 9, 1991 (Attachment
No. 2) , the Ministry of Municipal Affairs advised Laidlaw's
consultant that they would not be in a position to refer the
subject Official Plan Amendment application to the Ontario
Municipal Board until such time as they are advised by the Ministry
REPORT NO. : PD- 48 -91 PAGE 2
of the Environment that the application under Part V of the
Environmental Protection Act may proceed to the Environmental
Assessment Board, and the comments of the Town and the Region have
been received.
2 . 3 The Regional Department of Health Services has indicated to the
Town, that they would be withholding their comments on the Infill
proposal until such time as the position of the Ministry of the
Environment is made clear. Staff forwarded the comments of the
Ministry of the Environment to the Department of Health Services
on December 18, 1990.
2 .4 The comments of all the other technical agencies to which the
rezoning and official plan amendment applications were circulated
have been received.
3 . CORRESPONDENCE FROM LAIDLAW
3 . 1 By letter dated January 4, 1991 to Town Staff (Attachment No. 3) ,
Laidlaw indicated that it has prepared a response to the comments
from the Ministry of the Environment which will be provided to the
Town at such time as it has been submitted to the Ministry. The
letter also questions the position of Town Staff that site
hydrogeology is a matter which needs to be considered by the Town
in making a decision with respect to a proposed land use.
3 .2 The Town's response to Laidlaw's letter is attached hereto as
Attachment No. 4 .
4 . CAPACITY REMAINING AT EXISTING SITE
4 . 1 By letter dated October 3, 1990 (Attachment No. 5) , Laidlaw
submitted a request to the Ministry of the Environment for an
Emergency Certificate of Approval on their existing landfill
operation. Laidlaw stated in the letter that landfilling operations
on the north mound have ceased, and that the active face on the
south mound was within three weeks of reaching capacity.
REPORT NO. : PD-48 -91 PAGE 3
4 .2 In a telephone conversation with Town Staff on October 19, 1990,
Mr. John Bray, the Director of the Approvals Branch within the
Ministry of the Environment, indicated that he did not feel an
emergency existed as defined by the Environmental Protection Act,
and that a verbal denial with respect to the request for the
Emergency Certificate of Approval had been issued to Laidlaw.
4 . 3 Council has previously directed Staff and Municipal Counsel to
determine the remaining capacity at the existing landfill site and
to advise Council on actions that may be taken to ensure that the
site is closed immediately upon reaching capacity. Town Staff has
requested the Ministry of the Environment to provide information
related to remaining site capacity, most recently by letter dated
February 5, 1991 (Attachment No. 6) . As of the writing of this
report, the Ministry had not responded to the Town's request.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Franklin Wu, M.C. I .P. La ence E. Kotseff
Director of Planning Chief A i strative
and Development Officer
JAS*FW*df
*Attach
7 February 1991
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Mr. John Kennedy, M.C. I .P. Mr. David Scott
Marshall Macklin Monaghan Chairman
80 Commerce Valley Drive East Committee of Clarke Constituents
Thornhill, Ontario Box 28
L3T 7N4 Newcastle, Ontario.
Ms . Dianne Lemieux Mrs . Helen MacDonald
Fogler Rubinoff R.R.#1
Barristers and Solicitors, Newtonville, Ontario.
Suite 1400, LOA 1J0
150 York Street,
Toronto, Ontario.
M5H 3T1
r
Ministry Mlrnstbre
of the de
Environment I'Environnement Attachment # 1
Untano
250 Dam,.Itle Avenue 250,avenue Oavisvdle
Toronto,Ontano Toronto(Ontano)
APPROVALS BRANCH 144S1H2 WSIH2
3rd Floor
Tel. (416) 440-3546
Fax (416) 440-6973
December 4, 1990.
Laidlaw Waste Systems Limited
3410 Service Road
Box 5057
Station "A" � tip
Burlington, Ontario.
L7R 3Y8 DEC 12 1990
Attention: Mr. M.J. Pullen. P.Eng. TOWN OF i VAKASTLE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Pullen: _
RE: LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (DURHAM LTD.
C APPLICATION FOR LANDFILL EXPANSION (INFILL)
DECEMBER 21, 1989
The above application and supporting documents have been reviewed
by Ministry staff. Comments are enclosed in the accompanying
Schedule A.
As you will see from the comments, a number of technical issues
must be resolved.
When applying for the expansion of an existing site, it must be
demonstrated that the existing site is operating in an
environmentally sound manner.
A clear definition of the site's subsurface and associated
groundwater flow and leachate migration must be provided for the
determination of any existing or potential negative off-site
effects.
Contingency plans must also be proven viable. It must be shown that
the leachate can be effectively collected and disposed.
It is recommended that the application not be forwarded to the
Environmental Assessment Board until such time as the outstanding
issues are satisfied.
Should you wish to arrange a meeting with Ministry staff to discuss
these comments, please contact Mrs. Anne van Warmerdam at 416-440-
3726.
Yours truly,
Original Signed
by
I R. Bray
J.R. Bray, P.Eng.
Director
encl.
av/
cc: J. Merritt, MOB, Central Region
C. Lundy, Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham
P. Barrie, Clerk, Town of Newcastle f
D. Jardine, MMA, Plans Administration Branch
D. Scott, Committee of Clarke Constituents
SCHEDULE A
The Ministry of the Environment staff have reviewed the above-noted application and
following documentation in support of the submission:
1. "Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd., Infill Project, Hydrogeology- Laidlaw
Newcastle Landfill," prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited, dated
December 19, 1989.
2. "Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd., Infill Project, Development,
Operations and Closure Report - Laidlaw Newcastle Landfill," prepared by
Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited, dated December 15, 1989."
3. "Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd., Infill Project, Transportation Impact
Assessment - Laidlaw Newcastle Landfill," prepared by Marshall Macklin
Monaghan Limited, dated December 18, 1989.
4. "Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd., Infill Project, Visual Impact
Assessment and Use Planning- Laidlaw Newcastle Landfill," prepared by
Baker, Salamon &Associates Limited, dated December 18, 1989.
5. "Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd., Infill Project, Dust Impact Analysis -
Laidlaw Newcastle Landfill," prepared by Concord Scientific Corporation, dated
December 19, 1989.
6. "Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd., Infill Project, Noise Impact
Assessment- Laidlaw Newcastle Landfill," prepared by J.E. Coulter Associates
Engineering, dated December 19, 1989.
7. "Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd., Infill Project, Public Consultation
Report - Laidlaw Newcastle Landfill," prepared by Institute of Environmental
Research (1985) Inc., dated December 1989.
8. "Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham)Ltd, Social Analysis Report," prepared by
Institute of Environmental Research (1985) Inc., dated December 1989.
) J
- 2 -
9. "Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd., Proposed Leachate Forcemain -
Laidlaw Newcastle Landfill," prepared by Henderson, Paddon &Associates
Limited, dated August 1989.
10. "Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham)Ltd., InfiIl Project, Government
Consultation Report- Laidlaw Newcastle Landfill," prepared by Marshall
Macklin Monaghan Limited, dated December 19, 1989.
Comments regarding the report are as follows:
- 3
%AIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (DURHAM) LEMM ED INFILL PROJECT,
NOISE DIPACT ASSESSMENT - LAIDLAW NEWCASTLE LANDFILL."
PREPARED BY J.E. COULTER ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING
The submission follows procedures described in the Ministry's noise guidelines. The
proposed control measures are acceptable provided that the recommendations
included in Section 6.0 of the report are properly incorporated into the final design.
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (DURHAM) LTD.
DEVELOPMENT, OPERATIONS AN CLOSURE REPORT
NEWCASTLE LAMI AW LANDFILL
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Paire 1-3: A list of benefits is provided which is said to only occur if the site is
approved. The list includes an improved level of groundwater and gas
monitoring, an improved level of leachate collection from the existing landfills
due to the new system to be installed beneath the infill and installation of an
expanded leachate collection system for the site.
Should the site infill not be approved, the Ministry would still have the ability
to require an improved groundwater and gas monitoring system. The expanded
collection system to the west of the site was required by condition on a
previously issued Certificate of Approval. While leachate from the existing site
may be collected from the new infill collection system, it is understood that the
majority of leachate will be collected from the infill. The additional amount
collected from the previous filled areas is not documented.
Figure 2 should include the locations of the two additional sedimentation
ponds.
� f
I
- 4 -
1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.4 Hydrology
Page 2-6: Flow rates are given for the Graham Creek at the entry point to
Lake Ontario. According to the reference given, these numbers are at least
25 years old. Are more recent figures available and if not, are the 1965 OWRC
figures appropriate?
The report A1ao states that sampling analysis to date has not resulted in
evidence of leachate presence in Graham Creek. This should be re-stated to
say that there has been no evidence of impact on Graham Creek from leachate
from the landfill.
2.5 Leachate Characterization -�
The sample used to characterize the leachate was collected from the sump of
the upper collector. It is described as a blend of leachate and groundwater
from the upper and lower collectors. Sample analyses indicate the nature of
the leachate collected for treatment, but not pure leachate. The sump sample
had a conductivity value of 168 mmhos/cm while material sampled in OW95-4
had a conductivity value of 8,340 mmhos/cm(sampled by MIML).
It is recommended that a representative sample of pure leachate be collected
for analysis and used for worst case scenario predictions.
The values listed in Table 1 should be compared to background values for this
site and not necessarily to values at other landfill sites as has been done.
While a comparison to other landfill sites may indicate that parameters fall in
the "typical" range, it is not indicative of changing conditions at the site.
C
- 5 -
2.6.1 Groundwater Movement
Paste 2-10: The gradients are said to be primarily downward in the infill area
and upward near Graham Creek. This does not necessarily follow from the
information provided in the Hydrogeology Report (Table 5, Page 3-5).
Information suggests that the gradients at OW37-5, OW83-13 and OW78-4 are
downward (these wells are just south of the Creek), with only OW78-6 having
an upward gradient. These findings are inconsistent with the statement made
in the Design and Operation Report.
Similarly, it is suggested that the gradients in the infill area are primarily
downwards. The information provided indicates a perched water table at
OW95, leaving only one monitor showing a downward gradient (OW92-5).
Monitor OW93 shows an upward gradient.
Pare 2-11: It is indicated that the hydraulic conductivity of the soils
�+ underlying the infill area range from 10'cm sec. in the sands and gravels to
10' cm/sec. in the silt soils. These values have been based on sieve analyses.
Bail tests conducted in the Hydrogeology Report indicate that the conductivity
values of the soils range from 10'cm/sec. to L4 x 10'cm/sec.
2.6.3 Reasonable Use Guidelines
Page 2-12: The report states that as the Laidlaw site predates the
implementation of this policy, the Reasonable Use Guidelines do not apply to
the site. It should be noted that this policy applies to this expansion. .Before
the Reasonable Use Policy was implemented, no discharge was permitted
beyond site boundaries.
The waste disposal site's location presently registered on title is parts of Lot 12,
Parts 1 and 3, Concession 3, Town of Newcastle, Regional Municipality of
Durham.
- 6
l
Migration to the south of the landfill must be determined, as should any
necessary remedial measures.
The site owner must be able to demonstrate that any contaminant migration
off-site meets the required levels.
The landfill's limit of fill for Phase 2 borders on the southern portion of Part 3,
Lot 12. No buffer exists.
Pages 2-13, 14: The report assumes that the downgradient use of
groundwater from the site is Graham Creek and that the Reasonable Use
Guides can be applied using the Provincial Water Quality Objectives. This
is inconsistent with the manner in which the policy is to be applied and
nullifies the results of any of the calculations. It is acknowledged that there
are physical and chemical processes which alter groundwater as it seeps into
the surface water environment. For these reasons, the background values are
to come from the appropriate monitoring wells and not surface water bodies.
A statement is made to the effect that there is no groundwater flow under
Graham Creek. Does this mean no groundwater flow perpendicular to the flow
direction of the Creek at depth?
The Sykes model referred to on Page 2-13 was discouraged by the Ministry of
the Environment during a previous meeting, dated March 30, 1988. It is
interesting to note that Page 2-16 of the same report reads:
"Consideration was given to modelling the site; however, after
exam;nAtion of a few of the models available, it was concluded
that the site geology and hydrogeology was too complex to
realistically model."
Leachate was detected in OW37-5. Since the writing of the report, the leachate
collection system has been extended along the western boundary, east of the
observation well. Parameters (iron and phenol)were found to exceed
Reasonable Use Criteria during the sampling period of May 1988. Why has
recent sampling not been undertaken to confirm this? If confirmed, what
,
i
- 7 -
measures will be taken to rectify this situation before the material migrates off
site? Have trends continued since the implementation of the collector system?
It is suggested that phenols may occur naturally in the groundwater.
Background samples are required to confirm this statement.
If geology is found to be too complex to obtain representative samples in
unaffected areas, the leachate must be adequately characterized in order to
identify parameters and concentrations exclusive to the leachate.
2.6.3.2 Future Results
Page 2.16: It is incorrect to propose that since the Reasonable Use Policy
Guidelines will come into affect once approval for the infill is granted, the
present parameter concentrations could be considered background. To
insinuate that present conditions at a site which has been operating since the
" early 1970's may represent background is reprehensible. Background
concentrations are described in the Ministry of the Environment's 'Reasonable
Use Policy" as the "quality of the groundwater prior to any man made
contamination".
Representative values of a background quality of respective aquifers are to be
collected in order to assess any possible degradation of quality.
The report concludes that the extrapolation of data indicates that Reasonable
Use Guidelines will not be exceeded in the near future. The term "near future"
is unacceptable. Predictive monitoring(based on conservative figures) should
` be undertaken to determine when maximum allowable limits may be exceeded.
Annual monitoring and reporting will be used to assess and modify the
predictions.
t a c>
t
- 8 -
3.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT
3.3 Landfill Design and Phased Development
Page 3-2: It is indicated that 17,000 tonnes of soil would be required for site
repairs. However, on Page 3-7 in Table 6, 14,000 tonnes are dedicated to site
works. For the waste and cover quantity calculations, the figure 14,000 tonnes
is used. This discrepancy should be clarified.
Table 6 also states that the total volume of waste and cover quantity is
223,694 ma. Were the final contour elevations for the infill project based on
placement of this volume within the area. This should be verified by
illustrating that the volumes between the final contour and bottom contours
are the same.
3.4 Base Preparation
The report recommends that 1 m of silt till be placed to form a base for the
infill area. The reasoning behind this should be presented (i.e., why only 1 m
and will it be compacted to a hydraulic conductivity of less than 1.4 s 10' cm/
sec.?). Predictions of leachate migration through the liner should also be
provided.
The diagram showing the leachate collector details indicate that the pipe will
be 0.65 m below the ground surface. This places it 0.35 m above the base of
repaired bed surface. Is this intended to adequately isolate the underlying
strata from the collector system?
In order to prepare the infM base, the Trans Canada pipe bedding and
underlying gravel will be removed to depth of 2 m. Concern exists that the
pipe .acted as a conduit for leachate travel. It is, therefore, suspected that
leachate may exist in high concentrations within the soil. Will visual
inspections be made to ensure that all leachate contaminated soil has been j
removed? !
- 9 -
It is stated that waste has a hydraulic conductivity of 1 a 10-3 cm/sec. thereby
providing a preferential flow along the base which has a permeability of
1.4 s 10-5 cm/sec. Waste studies have found that waste hydraulic conductivities
can vary from 10' cm/sec. to 10' cm/sec. depending on the material's density,
degree of compactness, and state of degradation. It should be demonstrated
that the difference created between 10' cm/sec. and 10' cm/sec. will create
enough of a differential flow.
What are the bottom contour elevations of the existing two landfilled areas as
compared to the proposed infill project?
Drawing 1 shows a compacted silt till base up to an elevation of 165 m on the
slide slopes. Is there refuse under the new side slope and will the integrity of
the new base be affected by settling of old refuse below?
What are the locations of detail A) and B) of the leachate collector tiles on the
drawing?
3.5 Leachate Collection System
Paire 3-3: It is indicated that if one of the leachate collector pipes is blocked,
leachate flow would be collected by the second pipe. On Drawing 1, a crown on
a the base between the two collector pipes is shown such that the leachate flow is
split. In all likelihood, if one collector pipe becomes blocked, leachate would
flow along the trench.
The drawing also shows a minimum separation distance of 1 m between the
base of the liner and water table. Justification for this distance must be
provided.
A cross-section should be presented showing the elevations of the present and
proposed leachate collector systems. The elevations of the creek bed and the
sedimentation pond basins should also be documented.
- 10 -
}
Page 3-4: Reasons for the assumption of a long-term infiltration rate of
23 cm/year (9"6rear) should be provided.
The report stipulates that 0.3 m of till will be placed over the collector system
while no refuse is placed on that section of the site. Should there be truck
traffic in the area, an additional 0.6 m will be placed over the trench malting a
total thickness of protective covering of 1.6 m. These numbers should be
substantiated to the appropriateness of the intended purpose.
3.6 Leachate Disvosal
Possible leachate disposal methods discussed include leachate flow routed via
the existing leachate collection system to the rapid infiltration basin or the flow
routed to a pump station and then to a forcemain to a sewage treatment plant.
On March 1, 1990, Laidlaw notified the Environmental Assessment Board that 1
it did not plan to proceed with the forcemain application. Therefore, this is no J
longer considered an option for leachate disposal.
The rapid infiltration basin has a storage capacity of two months should no
infiltration take place. Should this occur, leachate will be trucked away.
Assurances or guarantees must be provided to show that disposal of leachate
will be done in an environmentally safe and acceptable manner. If trucked the
leachate will meet sewer use by-laws if hauled to a municipal sewage
treatment plant.
The rapid infiltration basin (RIB) is prone to clogging overtime due to the
precipitation of metals and the formation of biological films derived from the
leachate. How is the performance of the basin assessed?
In order to assess the RIB performance, it is recommended that a more
frequent sampling interval be undertaken in order to determine the travel time
of leachate between the sump and observation wells below the infiltration
basin. Change in chemical characteristics shall also be observed. Sampling
parameters should include chloride, sulphate and other mobile cations.
3.8 Sedimentation Control
The additional ponds and the expansion of the existing pond to accommodate
the sediment from the surface runoff will have an affect on the groundwater
conditions on site. The large northern pond will be located very close to the
collector system along the northwest edge of the filled zone. What are the
expected effects of having a large potential recharge zone at this proximity to
the leachate collector? What is the elevation of the pond bottom expected to be
and how does this compare to the elevation of the leachate collector in this
area? By what volume will these capture basins reduce the volume of leachate
projected to be collected by the collection system?
4.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Pare 4-1: The report indicates that water for calcium chloride will be utilized
for dust control. Will the use of calcium chloride on roadways affect
groundwater monitoring results for defining the leachate plume?
4.5 Leachate Collection System Maintenance
The leachate pumping stations are proposed to be checked weekly during
operations. If the pumping stations do not already have alarm systems with
signals such that the pumping station can be attended to immediately, it is
recommended that alarm systems be installed to reduce the risk of any
breaching of the collection system. The low level leachate pumping station
approved did show a high level alarm. Also, in a letter dated March 11, 1988
from Mr. D. Tefft of Laidlaw,it was stated that pumping stations would be
inspected daily from Monday to Friday.
I
4.6 Gas Control
The report suggests that the leachate collection system will prevent migration
and allow the venting of landfill gases. It is agreed that there will be some gas
1
i
- 12 -
1
venting through a leaching collection system; however, there is no guarantee
that it will prevent gas migration. The report fails to provide a contingency for
odour control of landfill gases.
4.11 On-site Rec9clin�
On-site recycling should be included as part of the application and supporting
documentation. For example, the location of the recycling containers should be
shown on the drawings.
4.9 Winter Operations
It is indicated that an emergency dumping area will be prepared for trucks not
being able to access the actual working face. This proposed area should be f
shown on a drawing (as part of the supporting information) as an emergency 1
transfer storage area. In this way, emergency facilities would be approved with J
the infill project. Perhaps, an alternative would be not to operate the site when
trucks cannot access the working face.
5.0 MONITORING AND CONTINGENCY
An annual monitoring report is to be submitted in September which would
include surface and groundwater, leachate and gas monitoring results. An
interpretation of the analysis results and recommendations based on the
interpretation are required.
5.1 Surface Water Monitorinz
The report indicates that Graham Greek is sampled four times a year between
May and September. It is recommended that the sampling period be extended
to at least into November or late fall. Sampling between May and September
is too compressed and would not reflect seasonal fluctuations.
t ) /�
- 13
5.2 Groundwater Monitorin¢
The monitor wells to be sampled semi-annually should be listed. The report
has stipulated that 20 wells are to be sampled as listed on Fig. 5. There are
more than 20 wells shown as monitoring wells.
The contingency measures stated should be elaborated with specific details
provided. If purge wells are to be placed, where would they be positioned and
to what depths will they extend? What kind of leachate is likely to be utilized?
5.3 Leachate Collection Syjdem Monitoring
In order to assume all leachate is collected by the existing collection system, it
Cis requested that a site water balance be conducted
It is stated that all pipes will be flushed and cleaned annually in addition to
any cleaning for emergency purposes. How will cleaning of collector tiles be
implemented without clean-outs at specific and reasonable distances? It also
indicates that system monitoring will be conducted monthly with pumping
stations and inspected more frequently.
In a letter dated May 11, 1988 from Laidlaw to the Ministry, it is indicated
that leachate pumping systems will be inspected on a daily basis from Monday
to Friday. Standby pipes have been ordered and a vacuum tank truck has been
obtained on a standby basis. Also, this system will be disassembled bi-
annually for inspection and maintenance, not annually as proposed.
It is understood that an alarm system was installed in a low level !
� P�P� i
station. It is recommended that alarm systems with signals to a 24-hour man
station, if possible, are installed at all pumping facilities.
I
i
- 14-
1
5.4 Gas Monitorin¢
The locations and depths of the six gas monitoring probes should be clearly
presented. The rationale for six monitors should be provided.
5.5 Contin¢ency Action
It may be difficult to pinpoint the source of leachate migration impacting
Graham Creek. It is recommended that while contingencies are being carried
out io loc to and correct the problem, immediate haulage of leachate be
implemented in lieu of recycling the leachate back,to the site.
An off-site treatment plant is recommended as one of the options available in
dealing with the problems of excessive leachate generation. Has there been an
allocation at the treatment plant for volumes of leachate from this site? Are
there any estimates of the volumes which may be of concern? Where is the
plant which will be taking excess volume?
One of the considerations in implementing contingency plans is the increase in
leachate head such that it is considered detrimental to the underlying
groundwater. Table 8 indicates that this level is to be 3 m above the liner.
Reasons for this height stipulation should be documented. Is it to be 3 m in
the base of a liner or from the top of the liner? What is the elevation of
leachate head in Phases 1 and 2?
Pare 5-5: It should be clarified that although Laidlaw is committed to a
leachate forcemain, Durham Region has not provided an allocation of capacity
for the £orcemain in the extension of the Graham Creek Water Pollution
Control Plant. As stated earlier, Laidlaw withdrew its forcemAin application
from the Environmental Assessment Board.
Table 8: In the column pertaining to the surface water Graham Creek
contingency plan, reference to the Reasonable Use Guidelines should not be
used.
) d J
- 15 -
Two uses for purge wells are proposed for contingency methods. The first is to
use the wells to create a flow boundary, thereby preventing leachate migration.
In order to demonstrate their effectiveness, it is recommended that pump tests
be conducted in order to determine the radius of influence. The impact of the
purge well system on groundwater levels and stream base flow must also be
assessed. The second proposed use is the direct withdrawal of leachate from
the waste area. The ultimate disposal of the leachate for both methods must
be determined.
6.0 SrM CLOSURE
6.1 Post-Closure Monitoring and Contingency Plan
After site closure, it is proposed that the proponent undertake dust and noise
monitoring only if there are complaints from surrounding residents. It is the
responsibility of the site owner to ensure that such problems are not created.
The annual monitoring report should not only indicate the monitoring results
but also an interpretation with recommendations as required.
Page 6.2: A discrepancy e3dsts in the report with respect to the monitoring of
the landfill gas. A post-closure monitoring frequency of four times a year is
proposed. However, in Section 5.4, continuation of sampling if the LEL is less
than 10 percent is discussed. Clarification is required.
6.3 Maintenance After Site Closure
It is suggested that annual inspections remain after the establishment of
vegetation. It is recommended that inspections be made twice a year,
preferably, during the spring and fall.
t
- 16 -
1
7.0 HYDROGEOLOGY
7.1.2 Groundwater
Calculations should be used to support the anticipated reduction in the
infiltration volumes and leachate volumes.
7.1.3 Sedimentation
The volumes of pond storage and of anticipated runoff should be stated in the
report as well as the methods used for these calculations.
7.1.4 Landfill Gas
The report indicates that the leachate collector mitigates gas migration
problems anticipated with increased fill. There is further mentioned made of
the placement of gas vents. The number and location of these should be shown
on the site diagrams along with construction details. Are these gas vents the
same as the six proposed monitors?
Landfilled gas odour control contingencies should be addressed.
7.3 Social Environment
It is implied that the life expectancy of the site is seven years. This has
changed to two years.
Paste B-2: Wells OW79-4 and OW81-3 are noted as being outside the collector
system on site. Well OW39-4 would also give some indication of the presence of
leachate beyond the collector and should be incorporated in the sampling
program-
j �� j
- 17 -
Page B-3: A statement is made that only pH, alkalinity, ammonium, phenols
and iron have been present at measurable levels over the period of record. It
would seem that these were the only parameters measured and were, therefore,
the only ones measurable. In most cases, for the time period covered, between
60 and 75 percent of the data is listed as "na". (Data were not available.)
It appears that the projection of the trends on the graphs B-1 to B-8 are at best
on two previous data points. Two points hardly constitute a trend on which
concentrations can be projected. The graphs would be more useful if all
parameters for a particular monitor were plotted on the same graph instead of
the current configuration. This would facilitate comparison of trends at each
monitor instead of a comparison of trends between monitors.
It is noted that the historical chloride levels for the values listed in Table B-4,
Extrapolated Groundwater Chemistry are not found in the parameters listed in
CTable 13-3. Where are the values used to arrive at these projections?
The parameters listed in Table B-6 are not consistent with those found in the
monitoring report and leachate indicators. Since the values used as
background for this site are incorrect, the values presented in this table are
meaningless as are the conclusions drawn from the values on the table.
Pate B-5: A statement is made that concentrations of ammonia, beryllium,
chromium, nickel and silver in the monitor wells and the leachate collector
system are below calculated Reasonable Use Policy levels. It has been noted
that these levels are incorrect if inappropriate background levels have been
used. Why are these parameters used to illustrate this point and not those on
the list of critical conteminen{,sy
The development operation and closure report should include a drawing
showing the general cross-section of the site to include bottom contour
elevations of the existing fill area and proposed area, leachate collector
Celevations, creek bottom groundwater table and leachate plume delineation.
There should also be a cross-section of the leachate pond, observation well,
creek bottom and water table including plume delineations from the rapid
1
- 18 -
l
infiltration basis. The drawing showing the cross-section of the bottom of the
infill area should also include the actual plan of the bottom contour area to be
used for the infill.
There should also be a cell developmental plan outlining the typical refuse fill
and cover and direction of the sequential fill development and a number of lifts,
etc.
'LAMI AW WASTE SYSTEMS (DI;RI LOD LEMMD. HYDROGEOLOGY-
NEWCASTLE LAIDLAW LANDFILL"
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.2.2 Surficial Geolocy
Pace 2-2: It is stated that "site boreholes only partially penetrated the 1
surficial sediment sequence...only the upper portion of the surficial sediment J
sequence has been interpreted with any degree of certainty". While migration
of the leachate has been determined through the upper sequences of the soils,
uncertainty still exists as to the migration of leachate from below the
previously filled phases. A partial understanding of the site's subsurface is
inadequate for the determination of groundwater and leachate migration.
Contingency plans cannot be made with any degree of confidence.
The Consultant should elaborate on the term "morainic land.form'.
Pace 2-3: The report indicates that seismic measurements conducted at the
site were unable to distinguish between the various strata known to exist from
borehole data. The report also notes that increasing size velocity with depth is
a requirement for the survey to reveal information at depth. The cross-sections
enclosed show stratigraphic changes in layering in the subsurface (dashed
lines). Was this information derived from the size of the surveys or from the
borehole samples?
- 19 -
3.0 HYDROGEOLOGY
3.1 Hydraulic Conductivity
Comparisons are made of the soil's hydraulic conductivity values based on
results from grain-size analyses and bail tests on Table 2. The two values
cannot be compared (with the exception of OW35-11) as the sample depths are
obtained from different lithological units. The bail test results are preferred as
they represent in-situ scenarios. Therefore, the statement that the hydraulic
conductivity values of the soils range from 10' cm/sec to 1.4 x 10' cm/sec is
acceptable. The range given on Page 2-11 of the Development, Operations and
Closure Report of 10' cm/sec to 10' cm/sec is unacceptable as the values are
based on sieve analyses.
It is not felt that the classification of on-site sediments as permeable or
relatively impermeable can be based on the above-noted values.
3.2 Groundwater Flow Directions
The shallow groundwater flow under the property is said to be radially away
from the landfill. This implies movement to the south as well as to the
northeast and northwest. The southerly direction of flow has not been
documented in the report. Water table contours and associated groundwater
flow to the south of the site must be determined and illustrated. In addition,
reasonable use calculations must be made relative to movement towards the
southern site boundary.
Fig. 9 presents water table contours for the infill area and parts of the site.
The contour lines end as they meet the fill boundary within the site. This
represents an incomplete picture and is incorrect in that an isopleth cannot
simply end as is the case in this diagram. Water table contours and associated
groundwater flow to the south of the site must also be shown.
- 20 -
Table 6 presents gradient directions and hydraulic gradient calculations for
selected wells on-site. The method used for the calculations of these gradients
should be provided.
4.0 GEO-CHEAHSTRY
4.1 Landfill Leachate
4.1.1 Leachate Control
ThA locations of the upper and lower collector pipes are described relative to
the location of Graham Creek. They are not, however, described as any
reference to their elevations. Elevations of the creek bed and collector pipes
should be clearly presented in sectional or planned diagrams.
42 Extent of Leachate J
Some leachate indicator parameters are listed and chloride levels are plotted on
Fig. 11. The chloride levels plotted are not all from the same sampling run
and, therefore, do not represent conditions at any one time. Maps of parameter
values placed beside the well of concern are appropriate for this type of report;
however, the well number should be presented on the map along with the value
for the parameter being detected. The date on which the sample is collected
should be presented along with the data.
There are two abandoned wells indicated on Fig. 9. Is there any information
on these wells such as depths, formations finished in, and time of
abandonment/destruction?
Leachate parameters for OW39-4 show trends of increasing concentration since
1986. The report recommends further testing before any firm conclusions may
be drawn as to whether or not there was any impact from leachate. The same
projection exercise performed in the Development, Operations and Closure
d `)
- 21 -
Report for certain wells and parameters should also he performed for this well.
There are more data points on which to base a projection than there were for
any of the well studies in the Development, Operations and Closure Report.
Page 43: The findings of the sample analyses are summarized by noting that
20 of the 41 piezometers sampled in 1988 indicate the presence of leachate.
This provides enough data to allow the drawing of leachate plumes or zones of
contamination in both plan and cross-sectional diagrams. Such information
should be included.
Table 10 compares shallow and deeper observation wells for levels of
contamination with respect to certain leachate indicators. There should be
another comparison made with background levels at these sites. These should
be compared to present conditions to determine if there is any change of depth
over time and not just changes between the shallow and deep wells.
C
5.0 HYDROLOGY
Flow rates from Graham Creek near the site are said to range from 30 to
2,000 Usec. The Development, Operations and Closure Report indicated a
slightly different range for flow rates (Page 2-6). Which range is correct? What
effect does this have on the calculations presented in determining the dilution
levels provided by the creek?
Fig. 13 shows the sedimentation pond which is not present on other figures in
this volume. The report does not indicate what effect this pond will have on
flow patterns both surficial and through the subsurface.
Table 11: The reported surface water quality parameters included the most
essential parameters for identifying potential water problems. The parameters
included chlorides, ammonia, nitrate, total phosphorus, phenols, DOC, BOD5,
iron and manganese.
- 22 -
The majority of results obtained from five sampling periods throughout 1988
reported satisfactory concentrations within Blue Book Objectives and
Guidelines. Only the BODE parameter indicated slightly elevated
concentrations with levels of 5.0 mg/L (November 4) at station SS1 and
20.0 mg/L(November 4)at station SSS. The results could be due to either
improper sampling techniques and/or due to a rainfall event which could
produce an inordinate amount of solids into the Graham Creek water column.
Several queries resulted during the data interpretation of the surface water
material that was presented including.
(a) L^,,--Qt?on of SS6 was described as a ditch by Stapleton Road but was not
shown on the surface water sampling locations map.
(b) In Section 5.1, under Graham Creek sampling, results in Appendix "E" is
mentioned as containing organochlorine concentrations. No such
Appendix "E" existed in the report. 1
The surface water quality data as presented in Table 11 indicated general
acceptable water quality in Graham Creek. The downstream surface water
quality was comparable to upstream quality and in some instances (mean
chloride concentrations), the surface water quality was improved downstream
compared with upstream concentrations.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The report concludes that leachate is diluted by anywhere from 20 to
300 percent as it seeps into the ground. This statement should be explained.
It is unclear whether dilution is the only process by which leachate
concentrations are reduced in this environment. With permeability decreasing
with depth as the report indicates, how does this increase in dilution take
place?
- 23 -
ADDENDUM A
Page A-2: Samples of groundwater collector from OW102-26 indicate that
there "is little or no leachate" present. The parameters were compared to other
wells on-site which are not screened within the same stratigraphic unit. In
order to detect any contamination, the sample should be compared to a similar
non-contaminated source. If the certainty of contamination cannot be
determined, the Ministry will assume the worst case.
Should it be confirmed that leachate was not found at a depth of approximately
16.8 m (the elevation of OW102-26 has not been reported), it should be kept in
mind that leachate has been detected between Phases 1 and 2 within
observation wells OW91-5, OW93-9, OW94-9, OW95-4, OW95-13 and OW100-15
at elevations ranging from approximately 148 m to 154 m above sea level.
This information should be used to determine the rate of migration through the
soil. Calculations should also be made to predict further migration and
changes in concentration.
Observations regarding the extent of leachate staining should be included with
the well logs for wells OW101, OW102 and OW103. Cross-sections
incorporating the new wells should also be included.
It is concluded on Page A-3 that groundwater does not appear to flow under
Graham Creek to its northern side. Boreholes should be drilled to confirm this.
In addition, it is (and was by the MOE previously in 1988) recommended that
groundwater monitoring be considered for the area to the north of Graham
Creek. This would rom ize any confusion with respect to the source of
contaminants should Graham Creek be measurably impacted. There is a
concern that the automobile shredder waste located at the Newcastle Recycling
Limited yard to the north of Graham Creek may represent a potential
contamination source.
r
t
- 24-
As discussed previously,the Sykes groundwater flow model was discredited by
the MOE during a previous meeting dated March 30, 1988.
It is concluded that the site overlies a compact till. No wells to the south
confirm the lateral extent. Have any hydraulic conductivity values for this unit
been determined? Observation well 98-21, which is partially screened in the
sandy till has hydraulic conductivity of K= 4.9 z 10' (bale test). This cannot
be considered impermeable.
Leachate discharge has been observed below leachate collectors since their
installation.
The dates of sampling undertaken in 1989 must be provided for Tables 8, 9 and
Appendix D.
Borehole logs for all existing wells along with historical sampling data should
be submitted in support of this document. 1
'TVFILL PROJECT, DUST IMPACT ANALYSIS - L AEDLAW, NEWCASTLE
LANDFILL,'AS PREPARED BY CONCORD SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
(DECEMBER 19, 1989)
1. Dispersion Calculation
Dispersion calculations were used to determine the dust concentrations
resulting from the existing operations, and both from the existing operations
plus the effects from the infill construction phase, and finally, the operation
and maintenance of the infill area All results were compared with the Ontario
criterion of 120 ugl&, based on a 24-hour average. These comparisons were
given in Tables 3.3, 3.4 and 4.2.
(a) Because the current Reg. 308, point of impingement standard (half an
hour average)is still valid, and appears in Schedule 1, Reg. 308, with
the value of 100 uglms, under the item No. 88 [Suspended Particulate
Matter (particulate less than 44 microns in size)) all the referenced
'1 J 1
- 25 -
1
tables showing the dust concentrations under the column heading
"Maximum 1 hour concentration (ug/m'Y should be given quite different
interpretation than the current"N/A". Note that the 1/2 hour
concentrations are 15% to 20% higher than their 1 hour average
equivalents (Tables: 3.3, 3.4, 4.2).
(b) Based on 1(a),the worst case meteorological conditions should be
extended to a broader set of conditions, including all stability classes
under which the concentrations are surpassing POI standard for each
individual source separately as well as for their combined effects. The
calculations should be carried out on the set of points of impingement in
order to show the spatial extent of the impact higher than the POI
standard.
2. Emission Rates and Emission Factors
All the formulas reported in Section 2.3 and 4.3.1 should be more carefully
reviewed as to the accuracy.
For instance:
(a) The formula 4.1 EAG=49*(s)^.6 kg/hectare for estimating the emission
factor for Agricultural tilling could not be found in the literature as
quoted in the report. However, in the AP-42, Supplement B, September
1988, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Section 11.2.2.3,
the following empirical expression (1)is found for agricultural tilling
E=k(5.38)*(S)^.6 kg/hectare, where Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier,
K, should be taken as 1.0 for the Total Particulate and S is silt content
of surface soil W. Dr. Robert Bloxam from ARB also confirmed the
validity of formula (1) from 11.2.23 EPA. Consequently, the whole
Section 4.3.1 cannot be accepted as valid and accurate until it is proved
contrary.
6 /1
- 26 -
(b) In Table 3.1, Section 3.3.2 where the formulas for the emissions factors
from Section 2.3 are related to emission rates, which are the essential
input values to any dispersion model, there are some inconsistencies in
referring to the appropriate equations. It is of interest, to the
Consultant to carefully document the "source extent" calculations prior
to converting the emissions factors to emission rates. When the results
are checked, many numeric values are not completely the same as
reported. The assumptions for some parameters must have been made
which were not probably the same as Consultant's because they were not
clearly defined.
(c) Reference to the equations in the Table 3.1 should be corrected and
reviewed for accuracy also.- To our understanding, equation reference 2.3
under column heading "Condition" and "Activity" item No. 1 should read
2.4 The emission rate entry for"Activity item
No. 1 should be, according to Consultant's calculation 0.252 g/sec. from the
"Activity", item No. 2. For "Activity" item No. 2,the emission rate value of
0.11 g/sec. from "Activity" item No. 1 should be used. Instead of equation
reference 2.4, under the "Activity"item No. 2,2.5 should be entered. Further,
instead of reference 2.5, 2.6 should be entered, and finally equation 2.6 should
be 2.7 or its substitute Ewe = 0.04 g/ha/sec.
(d) The following information should be included in the report, for better
understanding of the results:
(i) Under what conditions the equation 2.7 was evaluated to yield the
result 0.04 g/ha/sec. Is the value of 30%, for f, the percentage of
time the wind speed exceeds 19 km/hr, based on search of Trenton
or Peterborough wind data. Why"Storage Pile Erosion"was not
also included in the wind erosion impact assessment?
(ii) Under what conditions, the value 1,543 g/vkt, "Activity" item
No. 4 and No. 5, Table 3.1 is obtained when evaluating equation
2.1.
(iii) Fig. 3.6, mentioned on Page 29 is not available in the report.
- 27 -
1
3. Meteorology
On Page 21, the Consultant came to the conclusion, after comparing Trenton
and Peterborough data, that the infill site meteorology is better represented by
Trenton data, because of its nearness to the lake. It should be noted that wind
data from Port Hope and Oshawa are available from 1980-1989, and the wind
roses for both sites are enclosed in this review, together with the Trenton wind
rose, which was plotted based on the data provided by the Consultant for
comparison sake.
(NOTE: The enclosed wind roses are all centred in the "Origin" from the
modelling grid, as given in Fig. 2.1 in the report. The wind roses have been
rotated by the angle of 18 Deg. needed for Map North (direction parallel to the
vertical grid lines) to go clockwise to Real North. In this case, all wind
directions are real directions. Also, the plotted and tabulated frequencies
show the percentage included property boundary, plotted*according to Fig. 2.1 \
from the report, serves as a reference for the comparisons of changes of impacts
caused by three different wind roses on the same boundary.)
"INFILL PROJECT, SOCIAL ANALYSIS REPORT- LAIDLAW NEWCASTLE
LANDFILL,"PREPARED BY THE INSTUUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH; DATED DECEMBER 1989
Scope of Social Analysis
The scope of the analysis appears to be adequate for an application made under the
Environmental Protection Act (EPA).
Scope of Economic Analysis
While the document is entitled "social analysis", there are several references to
"economic analysis". The economic environment is not equivalent to the social
environment, under either the EPA or the Environmental Assessment Act
J ()
- 28 -
The economic environment should not be limited to "employment opportunities and
requirements for local goods and services" (ref. p. iv). As with the social impact
analysis, an assessment of the baseline economic environment would be useful. What
is spent, or what revenue to the Community is generated, by reliance on the local
goods and services noted in Section 6.0? Is Laidlaw the only customer? What is the
economic growth potential of the region?
Impacts on the natural environment may also have impacts on the economic
environment in terms of the quality of the local environment, the value of produce
and livestock, the value of other economic enterprises,property values, eta as well as
employment. The interest of the Ministry is the valuation of environmental impacts
from the proposed undertaking and its alternatives.
What is the support for the contention that if the "Infill Project not proceed, eight
existing jobs would be lost and goods and services from the local area would no longer
be required" (ref. P. v). Also,what is the basis for the assumption that "an increase of
up to 10% in requirements for the purchase of local goods and services is expected"
(ref. Page 21).
Elaboration on the conclusion that "municipal, commercial and industrial customers
using the landfill site, as well as prospective users,would have to dispose of their
waste on another location, potentially incurring increased cost and inconvenience" if
the project is not approved (ref. Page 17) is required. What are the comparative
costs?
Data Collection and Conclusion
The choice not to include an assessment of individual-based impacts is problematic.
The Consultant has identified 551 potentially impacted residents yet none of these
residents were specifically studied to determine the impacts of this infill project and
the significance of extending the life of the site, especially in terms of impacts on
health and safety.
- 29 -
One important issue that appears to have been cursory mention is the fact that the
Community was prepared to contend with a landfill site for a specified period of time -
until 1990 and now the facility could potentially be expanded. The social impacts
then occur as a result of doing nothing(letting the landfill close in 1990) compared
with continued landfilling for two more years.
By arguing that infill operations would not be marginally more than existing
operations, the Consultant has not adequately taken into account the alternative of
not expanding the site. For example, infill traffic may only represent a 10% increase
over existing traffic flow, yet the Community would not have to entertain,the existing
level or the 10% increase should the facility be closed in 1990. Therefore, the impacts
of the infM opar tion should be a comparison against the null alternative not the
existing use of the site.
The data on which the conclusion: "...disruption of activities and use and enjoyment
of residential property is anticipated to be minimal" (Page 12, Section {.1.6) should be
clearly stated. The data preceding this conclusion are essentially generic descriptive }
accounts of landfill sites and experiences associated with them. It is recognized and J
accepted that this is not a complete social impact assessment as required under the
EA Act; nonetheless, the social impact assessment should be specific to this site.
1
0
Attachment 2
January 9, 1991
Mr. John D. McDermott, M.C. 16P.
Principal planner
McDermott & Associates Limited
Pickering Corporate Centre
1305 Pickering Parkway
Suite 406
Pickering, Ontario
LIV 3P2
Dear Mr. McDermott:
Having received your letter of November 91 1990, I
would like to take this opportunity to update you on
the position of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with
respect to the request by Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. to
refer a proposed official plan amendment to the Ontario i
Municipal Hoard.
I recall, in previous correspondence you were advised
that comments w0cre still outstanding from the Ministry
of the Environment, the Region of Durham and the Town
of Newcastle. We have now received comments from the
Approvals branch of the Ministry of the Environment
regarding Laidlaw's technical reports submitted in
support of the Part v application made pursuant to the
Environmental Protection Act.
In a letter to Mr. M.J. Pullen of Laidlaw Waste Systems
Limited dated December 41 1990, Mr. J. R. Bray,
Director of the Approvals Branch of the Ministry of the
Environment, concluded by recommending that the (Part
V) "application not be forwarded to the Environmental
Assessment Board until such time as the outstanding
issues are satisfied".
on the basis of Mr. Bray's letter, it would appear
there are a number of outstanding issues which must be
satisfied if the Part V application is to be
recommended for referral to the Environmental
Assessment Board.
(!
/2
�l_
°Z-
Mr. John 12erwtt.
As a result, until such time as we are advised by the
Ministry of the Environment that the Part V application
may proceed to the Envirornmental Assessment Board and
we are in receipt of comments from the Town and Region,
we will not be in a position to refer Laidlaw's
proposed official plan amendment to the Ontario
Municipal Board.
In closing, it is my understanding that both the
Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario
Municipal Board have beef► notified of your application
for a consdlidated hearing pursuant to the Consolidated
Hearings Act.
Howaver, we have also been advised that tha
Consolidated Hearings Board will not be in a position
to schedule a hearing at which the Part V application
and the official plan amendment application may be
considered until such time as these two matters are
referred to the Environmental Assessment Board and the
Ontario Municipal, Board respectively.
f,
If you would like: to discuss this matter, please call
my office so that we may arrange a meeting.
Yours truly,
Brian D. Riddell VV
,r Assistant Deputy Minister
a.o. Mr. J. p. Bray, Ministry of the Environment
z
Victor Doyle/mf (PAS G & SW)
ki seq. R0075
'j INISTRY OF MUNICIPAL
AFFW PC'
JAN
ASSISiA,�, Licr.1,
h'JWIPAL OPERATIONS
,
I
Attachment # 3
WASTE SYSTEMS LTD f`
3410 South Service Road
LPrLI
P O Box 5057, Station A �rol(`;� ��,���"-���-�,T
Burlington Ontario
L7R 3Y8
Burlington 416 333-5011
Toronto �416� 826-3200
Fax (416) 333-5027
January 4, 1991
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle',
40 Temperance Street,
Bowmanville, Ontario,
L1C 3A6
Attention: Janice Auger Szwarz,
Senior Planner
Dear Ms. Szwarz,
Re: Laidlaw Landfill, Newcastle, Ontario
Infill Project, E. P. A. Part V
The Ministry of the Environment has submitted its comments on the submitted
document to us and our consultants have prepared a response to the comments.
The comments are being held up at present by the delay in setting up a meeting
with the Regional Hydrogeologist to clarify his comments. The documents will be
submitted to you in the very near future after they have been submitted to the
Ministry of the Environment.
As you are aware the comments are largely to do with the hydrogeology of the
site and have been addressed by the work that has been going on, on the site in
the last year. These matters will be reviewed with the Ministry of the Environment
in due course. You may wish to attend those meetings with a view to tabling your
comments on hydrogeology.
-/2
1
- 2 -
Jan1ce Auger Szwarz
January 4, 1991
At a meeting with the Ministry of the Environment on Dec 11, 1990 no land use
planning issues were noted that would prevent a vacated pipeline easement from
being used as landfill footprint. Neither Mr Frank Wu, of your office, or yourself
were prepared to comment, pro or con, on Land Use issues to our consultants
on Oct. 16, 1990. It is Laidiaw's understanding that Mr. Wu and yourself concur
with the Ministry as to the Land Use issues on this project.
Laidlaw is requesting clarification of Mr. Wu's contention that Hydrogeology has
to do with land use in this instance. His letter of Sept. 11, 1990 to Mr. John
Kennedy, is not explicit enough for our consultants to address the matter to your
satisfaction. In addition, you could be most cooperative by releasing a copy of
the the Acres review report and staff comments on the Hydrogeology Report and
implied Land Use Planning concerns. It would also be helpful if Laidlaws'
consultants could talk directly with Acres, acting on your behalf, to clarify a
number of issues.
Finally Laidlaw wishes to be copied on all correspondence, meeting notes, and
reports that concern our landfill. It is evident that copying Laidlaw used to occur
but that for some reason it has ceased. Please rectify this matter.
Yours sincerely,
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS LTD.
M. J. Pullen P.Eng.
Regional Engineer
CC. D. Hefferon, Municipal Counsel
A. Van Warmerdam, Ministry of the Environment
J. Sharpe, Region of Durham, Planning Department
B. Bennett, Acres International
J. McDermott
W. Pinkerton
D. Lemieux
.. .--,r
own Of Attachment # 4
CONiARO
January 18, 1991
Mr. MJ. Pullen, P. Eng.
Regional Engineer
Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd.
3410 South Service Road
P.O. Bog 5057, Station A
Burlington, Ontario
L7R 3Y8
Dear Sir.
RE: Official Plan Amendment Applies -File: 89-39/D
Rezoning Application -File: DEV 89-44
Laidlaw IaSII Proposal i
I
C This is in response to your letter of January 4, 1991 to Ms. Janice Szwarz in respect of the above - J
referenced application.
In your letter,you indicate that your consultants have prepared a response to the Ministry of the
Envi onmenVs comments on the Infill proposal. It would be appreciated if the documents referenced
in your letter could be submitted to the Town concurrent with their submission to the M'in'istry of
the Environment to avoid any unnecessary delay in our review of your application.
For the present,Town Staff have not planned to attend any meetings between yourself and the
Ministry of the Environment to discuss site hydrogeology. However, it is requested that the Town
be given adequate notice of any meetings with Ministry staff and be provided with the meeting
notes.
I read with interest,your statement that Ms. Szwarz and I"concur with the Ministry (of the
Environment) as to the Land Use issues on this Project".We were.not in attendance at the meeting
with the Ministry on December 11, 1990, nor were we copied with the meeting notes. Therefore, we
have no knowledge of the specific issues discussed at that meeting. It would be helpful if you would
provide us with any meeting notes for this meeting that you may have.
With respect to your request for clarification of our position that the hydrogeology of the Laidlaw
site is relevant to the question of land use, we think it is self-evident that, in assessing the
appropriateness of any proposed development, the potential negative effects on the natural
environment must be identified and evaluated. I note that our position on this matter was indicated
to Mr. John Kennedy and Mr. John McDermott at our meeting of October 16, 1990.
C
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
40 TEMPERANCE STREET • BOWMAI,. LLE • ONTARIO - L1C3A6 - (416) 623-3379 • i-AX623-4169 -C.0 P'rcn
Page 2.
We are surprised to now hear from you that your consultants do not understand what information
was requested in my letter of September 11, 1990. I note that my request was further clarified by
Ms. Szwarz in a letter to your consultant dated October 25, 1990. Your letter of January 4, 1991 is
the first indication we have had that your consultants require even further clarification with respect
to our very explicit request. Could you have your consultants contact either myself or Ms. Szwarz as
soon as possible to identify the precise problems that they are having in responding to my request.
You also make reference to the "Acres Review Report". As we have indicated to you previously,
Acres cannot complete their work evaluating your consultant's studies until you or yew consultants
provide the information requested in my letter of September 11, 1990.
Sincerely,
Franklin Wu, M.C.LP.
Director of Planning and Development
r JAS*FW*df
l
cc: L. KotseA C.A.O.
D. Hefferon, Municipal Counsel
A. van Warmerdam, Ministry of the Environment
J. Sharpe, Regional Phannin o
B. Bennett,Acres International
J. McDermott, McDermott & Associates
W. Pinkerton, Marshall Macklin Monaghan
D. Lemieux, Fogler Rubinoff
) o
I
Attachment # 5
AMW
a
1
WASTE SYSTEMS LTD
3410 South SFrvice Road
P 0 Box 5057, Station A
eurtirtgton, Ontario
t_7R 3Y8
Guriington (416) 333-5011
Toronto (416) 826-3200
Fay (416) 333-5027 j
October 3 , 1990
Ministry of the Envirgnment,
Approvals Branch 1
250 bavisville AVe. ,
Toronto, Ontario I
M4 S 1H2
Attention : Mr Jahn Bray, P.Eng,
Director
I 1
Dear Sir,
Re; Laidlaw Lendf�lll Newcastle, Ontario
Request for an Emergency certificate of Approval
Certificate of Approval Number A390305
Laidlaw thanks yoit for the opportunity of discussing withlyou
the request for an Emergency Certificate of Approval on the I
above noted Landfill Site.
The document prepared by Henderson and Paddon entitled
Proyosed TTandfi11� Slope Modifications is the intent of th�
application and r4resents the final contours that would
result for a further 53 to- 56 weeks of life For the site of
the presently licensed tonnages.
It is anticipatedithat given a timely submission of comments
on the pending Part V E.P.A. application that this would dive
Laidlaw sufficient time to get to a hearing for a further (two
years of life on he site.
Please feel free to contact Mr. Frank Ford of Henderson j
Paddon if there i,I s further information that you require.
Laidlaw is presently checking the survey that was carried out
on 1990 10 01 to verify that the remaining capacity is within
three weeks of completion. The north mound is complete with
final cover topsoil and is seeded. The active face is on the
south mound and is very close to completion.
� � I
- 2 -
' � I
Mr. John Bray
October 3 , 1940
r
I you have any estions, please contact the undersigned i or
Mr. Ron Poland ( 16-336-5151) or Mr. Michael Walters, r
District Landfil Manager (416-333-5011)
Yours sincerely,
LAIDLAW WASTE S+EMS LTD.
f '
M. J, Pullen P.E fig. II
Regional Engineer
cc. R.J. Poland, vice President of Environmental mangemenrt
Bruce Cook, Acting Regional Vice President I
Frank Ford, Henderson Paddon and Associates Limited
Jack Marsh, egional Landfill Manager
Michael Walt Irs, District Landfill Engineer
Don Tefft, Division Manager
DUR 07
f
r
I
c
i
i
I
I
I
E
I
t
t
f
E `
- + i
' I
I �
I -
I
i
Attachment 6
T�wastfi E TO�I N OF
e
ONTARIO
February 5, 1991
Mr. Gary K Boretski
Abatement East Section
Central Region
Ministry of the Environment
7 Overlea Boulevard, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4H 1A8
Dear Sir:
RE: LAIDLAW LANDFILL.SITE- TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PROVISIONAL C8RTIFICAT$OF APPROVAL NO. A39M
As you are aware, Laidlaw Waste Systems has been claiming for some time now that their existing
landfill operation in the Town of Newcastle is very dose to reaching its approved final contours.
Most recently, Mr. M. Pullen of Laidlaw, in his letter of October 3, 1990 (copy attached) to Mr.
John Bray of your Ministry regarding Laidlaw's request for an Emergency Certificate of Approval,
stated that the south mound on the site is within three weeks of capacity. However, as of today's
date, the site is still open and receiving waste.
By letter dated August 24, 1990 (copy attached), I requested confirmation from your Ministry as to
the operational status of the north and south mounds of the Laidlaw site, the existing elevation on
the south mound, the maximum allowable elevation permitted for the south mound under the
existing Certificate of Approval, and the tonnes of capacity available on the south mound. I note that
the information requested in my letter has not been provided to date.
The Town of Newcastle is most anxious to ensure that the Isidlaw site is closed once its maximum
allowable contours have been achieved. Therefore,please provide the information requested in my
letter of August 24, 1990 as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
,danice uge zwar , or Planne
,Strategic Branch
*ff
D. Hefferon, Municipal Counsel
J. Sharpe, Region of Durham Planning Department
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
40 TEWPERANCE STREET • BOWMANVILLE • 0hTAR10 • L1C 3A6 • (416) 623-3379 FAX 623-4169 �cvci®rya