Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-25-92 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE DN: INFILL.GPA REPORT PUBLIC MEETING Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # Date: Monday, January 20, 1992 Res. #( By-Law# Report #: ------.D-EV-89-44 ; OPA 89-39/D Subject: LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (DURHAM) LTD. INFILL PROPOSAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 89-39/13 REZONING APPLICATION DEV 89-44 PART LOTS 11 AND 12, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-25-92 be received; 2 . THAT Official Plan Amendment Application 89-39/D submitted by Marshall Macklin Monaghan on behalf of Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd. to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan to designate the existing landfill operation in Part Lots 11 & 12 , Concession 3 , former Township of Clarke, as a 'Waste Management Facility' , and to permit additional landfilling at the site, be recommended for DENIAL to the Region of Durham; 3 . THAT Rezoning Application DEV 89-44 submitted by Marshall Macklin Monaghan on behalf of Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd. to recognize their existing landfill operation in Part Lots 11 & 12, Concession 3 , former Township of Clarke, and to permit additional landfilling at the site, be DENIED; 4 . THAT the Ministry of the Environment be requested to provide the Town and the Region with the Ministry's formal position on the Official Plan Amendment application and the application pursuant to Part V of the Environmental Protection Act; 5. THAT a copy of this Report and Council's decision be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ontario Municipal Board, Laidlaw Waste Systems, the Region of Durham Planning Department, . Mr. Normunds Berzins of the Committee of Clarke Constituents, and the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of the Environment; and 6. THAT the interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of Council's decision. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd. propose to relocate two Trans Canada natural gas pipelines which currently bisect the two mounds of waste at their existing waste disposal operation in Part Lots 11 & 12, Concession REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 2 3 , former Township of Clarke, and to deposit approximately 90, 000 tonnes of waste over a two year period on the vacated easement (Infill proposal) . Laidlaw have submitted Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications which seek to recognize the existing landfill and to permit the Infill proposal. Laidlaw have also submitted an application to the Ministry of the Environment for approval of the Infill project under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. Laidlaw have requested a hearing under the Consolidated Hearings Act to deal with the various applications related to the Infill proposal. Trans Canada Pipelines submitted an application to the National Energy Board in September 1989 to permit the proposed relocation of the two natural gas pipelines. The National Energy Board has advised that they will be deferring consideration of the relocation project pending municipal and provincial approvals of the Infill proposal. The existing landfill is located adjacent to Graham Creek. Evidence exists that leachate from the existing landfill is not being adequately treated prior to its entering the Graham Creek system. Leachate from the Infill project would also not be adequately treated. Operations at the existing landfill have had a significant negative impact on the residents of the surrounding local community and on the condition of Town roads used by heavy trucks travelling to and from the existing landfill. The approval of the Infill project would only compound this impact. Since October 22 , 1990, only a minimal amount of waste has been received at the landfill. The applications to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Town of Newcastle Comprehensive zoning By-law to permit the existing landfill operation and the Infill project are recommended for denial. Laidlaw have indicated their intention to apply to expand their landfilling operation onto approximately 48 ha (119 acres) of land to the south of their current operation. The Minister of the Environment has recently advised that the necessary documentation will be prepared U REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 3 to make Laidlaw's Major Expansion proposal subject to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. 1. APPLICATION DETAILS 1. 1 Applicant: Marshall Macklin Monaghan 1.2 Owner: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Limited 1. 3 Official Plan Amendment: From 'Permanent Agricultural Reserve' and 'Major Open Space' To 'Waste Management Facility' 1. 4 Rezoning: From 'Agricultural (A) ' , 'Agricultural - Special Exception (A-1) ' To an appropriate zone to permit the operation of a 'Waste Management Facility' , to include landfilling, recycling and waste separation 1. 5 Area: Total site area is 27 . 13 ha (67 . 03 acres) , of which 8 . 1 ha (20. 0 acres) is currently licensed by the Ministry of the Environment as a sanitary landfill; the proposed Infill would occupy 0. 58 ha (1. 4 acres) ; the borrow area to the south of the landfill operation would have an area of 11. 0 ha (27 . 2 acres) 2 . LOCATION 2 . 1 Legal Description: Part Lots 11 and 12 , Concession 3 , former Township of Clarke 2 . 2 Relative Location: East side of Stapleton Road, approximately 0 . 6 km (0. 37 mi) south of Concession Road 4 (Attachment No. 1) DU REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 4 3 . EXISTING AND SURROUNDING USES 3 . 1. Existing Uses: landfill site owned and operated by Laidlaw, and easement for two TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TCPL) natural gas pipelines 3 . 2 Surrounding Uses: North- Auto wrecker and scrap recycling operation; Rural Residential South - other lands owned by Laidlaw East - Agricultural and Rural Residential West- Agricultural 4. BACKGROUND 4 . 1 Official Plan and Rezoning Applications 4 . 1. 1 Laidlaw have submitted their opinion to the Town, that the existing sanitary landfill is a legal non-conforming use and can continue to operate as such since it existed prior to the adoption of the Town of Newcastle Comprehensive Zoning By- law 84-63 . Laidlaw also argues that the area between the north and south landfill mounds, in which two TCPL natural gas pipelines are located, comprise part of the area protected from the operation of the zoning by-law as a legal non- conforming use. Laidlaw have indicated that they do not feel that an amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan is required in respect of the Infill proposal. 4 . 1. 2 On January 30, 1989 , Council resolved to advise Laidlaw that the Town required applications to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Town of Newcastle Comprehensive Zoning By-law, as well as site plan approval, with regard to the Infill proposal. 4 . 1. 3 The Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications regarding the Infill proposal were received by the Region of Durham and the Town of Newcastle respectively on April 13 , 1989 . Laidlaw have suggested that the applications have been submitted to "facilitate" the Infill project. '510, REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 5 4 . 1.4 Laidlaw continue to argue that the landfill site enjoys legal non-conforming status, including the area between the landfill mounds in which TCPL has a perpetual pipeline easement and has installed two pipelines which are portions of their inter- provincial system. Staff note that Laidlaw are only legally entitled to use the two existing landfill mounds for waste disposal in accordance with the Provisional Certificate of Approval issued under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. Laidlaw's legal non-conforming use does not extend to the TCPL pipeline easement area. Without an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning, the easement cannot be lawfully used for the purposes of a landfill. Staff note that the use of the easement area as a landfill is integral to Laidlaw's proposal to fill in the land between the north and south mounds. 4 . 1. 5 On January 17 , 1990, Laidlaw's solicitors appealed the subject rezoning application directly to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) pursuant to Section 34 (11) of the Planning Act. This Section provides for a proponent to appeal a rezoning application directly to the Board when a Council fails to make a decision in respect of the application within thirty days of receiving it. 4 . 1. 6 On January 16, 1990, Laidlaw's solicitor requested the Minister of Municipal Affairs to refer the subject Official Plan Amendment application to the OMB pursuant to the provisions of Section 22 of the Planning Act. This Section of the Act provides that, where a Council fails to make a decision in respect of an application to amend an official plan within thirty days from the receipt of the request, the proponent may request the Minister to refer the proposed amendment to the Board. The Ministry has not referred the Official Plan Amendment application to the OMB as of the writing of this Report, although Staff expect that a referral will be made in the near future. REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 6 4 . 2 Existing Landfill Site 4 . 2 . 1 Plans submitted by Laidlaw indicate that the existing landfill covers 27 . 13 ha (67 . 03 acres) within a larger 162 ha (400 acre) parcel of land owned by the company. Approximately 8. 1 ha (20 acres) is currently licensed by the Ministry of the Environment as a sanitary landfill. The landfill consists of two cells, with a significant portion of the area between the cells being occupied by the TransCanada Pipeline Easement (Attachment No. 2) . The northern cell, which lies immediately adjacent to Graham Creek, reached its maximum allowable contours in mid-August 1990 and is no longer receiving waste. The southern cell was previously closed in 1985 when the mound reached its approved contours. However, the Ministry of the Environment permitted Laidlaw to resume landfilling operations on the south mound in September 1990 on the basis of a survey conducted for Laidlaw which indicated that the settling of waste material had provided subsequent fill capacity. 4 . 2 . 2 According to information submitted by Laidlaw, landfilling commenced during the mid-1950's on a portion of the site which was previously used for gravel extraction. In March 1971, a Provisional Certificate of Approval for a landfill was issued by the Ministry of Energy and Resource Management to Walter Hale. Landfill operations have been permitted to continue since that time through the issuance of new Provisional Certificates of Approval to Mr. Hale in 1972 , 1973 , 1974, 1976, and to Regional Reclaimers in 1981 and 1985. 4 . 2 . 3 The landfill is currently operating under the conditions of the Provisional Certificate of Approval issued in December 1985. The current Certificate permits the landfilling of a maximum of 816.47 tonnes (900 imperial tons) of residential, commercial and non-hazardous solid industrial waste per week. The approved maximum elevations for the existing north and south mounds are 183 m and 173 . 5 m. A.M. S.L. (Above Mean Sea REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 7 Level) respectively. Laidlaw purchased the Inf ill site and certain adjoining lands from Regional Reclaimers in May 1987 . 4 .2 . 4 In September 1990, Laidlaw requested the Ministry of the Environment to issue an Emergency Certificate of Approval for the existing landfill site. Laidlaw proposed to modify the slopes of the existing waste mounds in order to provide additional waste filling capacity at the site until the Inf ill application could be considered. On October 19, 1990, the Director of Approvals for the Ministry advised Town Staff that he did not feel that an emergency existed under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act, and accordingly denied Laidlaw's request for an Emergency Extension. 4. 2. 5 Information provided by the Ministry of the Environment indicated that, as of October 22 , 1990, the volume of waste received at the existing landfill was substantially reduced. For example, only 7 . 5 tonnes of waste was received in May 1991. Staff noted, on visits to the site on May 10, 1991 and August 19, 1991, that signage had been posted advising that only domestic waste was being received. No evidence of active landfilling operations was observed by Staff at these times. 4 .2 . 6 In a letter dated May 16, 1991, the Ministry of the Environment advised Laidlaw that, during an inspection of the landfill site on January 17 , 1991, Ministry Staff had observed two liquid ponding areas containing a "leachate orange coloured liquid" on the Graham Creek floodplain north of the Rapid Infiltration Basins. Laboratory analysis of the liquid indicated that the parameter levels measured in the low range of leachate toxicity. Ministry Staff concluded that the liquid was leachate from the basins located up-gradient, but diluted with groundwater from the recharge springs located in the Graham Creek floodplain. The Ministry advised Laidlaw that they are required to provide the Ministry with recommendations as to the manner in which this material will be contained J REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 8 and/or collected to prevent the discharge of this material into the natural environment. 4 . 2 . 7 In July 1991, Laidlaw submitted applications to the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources to extend the leachate collector system and to relocate a portion of Graham Creek adjacent to the existing landfill (Attachment No. 3) . In a letter to the Town dated July 29, 1991, Laidlaw's consultant stated that, in its existing location, the Creek is quite close to the existing landfill and the proposed relocation would benefit the Creek by providing an additional 20+ m (66 ft. ) buffer distance from the landfill. The Conservation Authority issued a permit for the work on the collector system on September 19, 1991. The Ministry of Natural Resources has requested Laidlaw's consultant to submit additional information related to the proposed creek relocation. 4 . 2 . 8 On October 8, 1991, Environment Canada formally advised the Town that it has initiated an preliminary investigation pursuant to the Fisheries Act, to determine if the existing Laidlaw landfill is releasing substances harmful to fish into Graham Creek. The Department requested the Town's assistance in receiving information dealing with the leaching of substances from the waste site into Graham Creek. At the date of writing, Environment Canda is continuing their investigations. 4 . 3 Description of the Proposed Infill Project 4 . 3 . 1 Laidlaw propose to reroute the two TransCanada natural gas pipelines within the easement area to the south of the southern landfill cell and use the lands consequently made available (0. 58 ha/1. 4 acres) for the placement of waste (Attachment No. 4) . X14 REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 9 4 . 3 . 2 Laidlaw originally proposed to extend the life of the present landfill operation for two years at a disposal rate of 3 , Og0 tonnes per week. The Rezoning and Official Plan Amendment applications as submitted proposed to extend the life of the site for seven (7) years at rate of 895 tonnes per week, which represents a ten percent increase in weekly tonnage over the rate permitted by the existing Certificate of Approval. Approximately 325, 000 tonnes of waste would have been deposited in the Infill area under this proposal, which would have created a single mound with an elevation of 198 . 5 m AMSL. 4 . 3 . 3 Laidlaw currently propose to operate the Infill Project for two years, at a disposal rate of 895 tonnes per week. This would result in a total of approximately 90, 000 tonnes of waste being deposited. The final proposed topography would be a single mound, with the mound elevation being 183 m, which is the same as the height of the north mound permitted by the current Certificate of Approval (see Attachment No. 5) . 5. OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES 5. 1 Durham Regional Official Plan (1976) 5. 1. 1 The Durham Regional Official Plan currently designates the subject lands as 'Major Open Space' and 'Permanent Agricultural Reserve' , with an indication of 'Hazard Lands' associated with Graham Creek. The Official Plan (Section 14 . 2 . 3) also states that, notwithstanding any other provision in the Plan to the contrary, pipeline rights-of-way may be allowed in any land use designation. 5. 1. 2 The Plan (Section 14 . 2 . 10) requires waste disposal sites to be designated on Map A to the Plan. The existing landfilling operation is not designated in the Official Plan. 5. 1. 3 The Official Plan (Section 16 . 6 . 5) also states that the Plan is not intended necessarily to prevent the continuation, expansion, or enlargement of uses which do not conform to the ? r REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 10 designations and provisions of the Plan. At their sole discretion, the Councils of the area municipalities may zone to permit the continuation, expansion or enlargement of existing uses, or the variations to similar uses, provided that such uses, among other things, have no adverse effect on the present uses of the surrounding lands or the implementation of the provisions of the Plan. Each case is to be considered on its own merits by the area municipal Council and may be subject to site plan controls. Staff are of the view that the Infill project would have an adverse effect on the ,permitted use of surrounding lands. Accordingly, it is Staff's opinion that Section 16. 6. 5 of the Regional Official Plan is not available to the applicant. 5. 1. 4 The Official Plan (Section 14 . 2 . 13) requires new waste disposal sites to be specifically designated by amendment to the Plan. Each application for an amendment to the Official Plan is to be treated on its own merits as to its compatibility with the surrounding land uses and its impact on the environment. Since the area of the pipeline easement between the north and south mounds does not enjoy immunity from the provisions of the zoning by-law so as to entitle the owner to use the area for landfilling as of legal right (that is, without a rezoning) , its use must be regarded as a proposed new waste disposal site. An amendment to the Official Plan is therefore required to designate a 'Waste Disposal Site' on the subject lands and to permit the additional landfilling of waste between the two existing cells. 5. 2 Durham Regional Official Plan (1991) 5 . 2 . 1 On June 5, 1991, the Region culminated the review of their Official Plan with Regional Council's adoption of a proposed new Durham Regional Official Plan. The proposed new Official has not as of yet being approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The proposed Official Plan maintains the existing land use designations, as well as the indication of 'Hazard 516 REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 11 Lands' , for the subject lands. The TCPL gas pipeline is specifically indicated on Map A5 (Regional Structure - Town of Newcastle) of the proposed Plan. 5. 2 . 2 The proposed Official Plan (Section 2 . 3 . 6) indicates that the establishment of new waste disposal sites, or the expansion, or increase in capacity of existing waste disposal sites, shall require an amendment to the Plan. In the consideration of such applications, Regional Council is to consider the following matters: the principle of reduction, re-use and recycling of waste; alternative solutions for waste disposal; the impact of the proposal on the environment, the health of surrounding residents, the transportation system and existing and future surrounding land uses; financial implications to the Region; any other matters deemed appropriate by Regional Council or the respective area municipal Council. 5. 2 . 3 The proposed Official Plan (Section 20.4 . 4) contains the same provision as the 1976 Plan regarding the rezoning to permit the continuation, expansion or enlargement of uses which do not conform to the designation contained in the Official Plan, with the only difference being that the proposed Plan permits only "legally existing uses" to benefit from this provision. 5.2 . 4 On September 6, 1991, Laidlaw's solicitor submitted two letters to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in respect of the new Regional Official Plan. One letter requests the Ministry to modify the Official Plan to delete the current land use designations from Laidlaw's existing landfill site and replace them with a waste disposal site designation or, alternatively, to defer this portion of the Plan pending the decision of the Consolidated Hearing Board on the Infill application. REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 12 5. 2 . 5 The other letter from Laidlaw's solicitor requests the Ministry to refer certain sections of the new Official Plan which set forth polices in regards to waste disposal sites. The solicitor indicates that, in his opinion, the application of these policies would make it difficult, if not impossible, to establish new waste disposal sites or, to expand existing sites. 6. ZONING 6. 1 The existing landfill site, as well as the pipeline easement, are zoned 'Agricultural (A and A-1) ' by By-law 84-63 , the Town of Newcastle Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The operation of a waste management facility is not a permitted use within the 'Agricultural' zone. According to information provided by Laidlaw, the existing landfilling operation was established in the mid-1950's and therefore would predate the approval of By-law 1592 of the former Township of Clarke in 1968 . The rezoning application seeks a site specific zone to. permit a waste management facility, including landfilling, recycling and waste separation. 6. 2 The lands within the Regional Storm Floodline of Graham Creek, which runs to the north of the landfill site, are zoned 'Environmental Protection (EP) ' . The limit of the lands zoned 'EP' corresponds to the floodplain of Graham Creek under Regional Storm conditions. A portion of the sedimentation pond, as well as the leachate sump and pumping station, would appear to lie within the Regional Storm floodline of Graham Creek. 6. 3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 . 16 (Public Uses) of By-law 84-63 , the TCPL natural gas pipelines likely are permitted in the zone designations in question. 7 . OTHER APPLICATIONS RELATED TO THE INFILL PROPOSAL 7 . 1 Laidlaw are also seeking the approval of a number of other r � ,t � I ! REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 13 applications related to the Infill proposal, as discussed below. 7 . 2 Application for Certificate of Approval Pursuant to Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 7 . 2 . 1 Under Provincial legislation, approval for the Infill proposal is required under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) . This Act sets out the prohibitions related to the deposit, emission or discharge of contaminants into the natural environment. It also establishes the powers and procedures to be used by the Ministry in the regulation and control of contaminant discharges, including the requirement for a Certificate of Approval for a proposed undertaking. Part V of the Act sets out the specific interpretations, prohibitions and requirements related to waste management. The EPA applies to any existing or potential sources of contaminants in the private or public sector. 7 . 2 . 2 The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) normally only applies to public sector undertakings. Private sector undertakings are subject to the Act only if they are designated as such by regulation. The EAA sets out an environmental planning review process which requires a proponent to define the alternatives to a proposed undertaking, with a progressive narrowing down of the alternatives based on the study of the environment and the environmental impacts of the various alternatives. 7 . 2 . 3 In January 1989, Laidlaw requested the Minister of the Environment to relieve the Infill Project from the Ministry's policy to designate private waste management facilities under the EAA. Laidlaw gave the following reasons in support of its request: the Infill project would allow for continued disposal of waste at the existing landfill site while Laidlaw seek approval for their Major Expansion proposal; the changes proposed to the existing landfill site would 1 REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 14 not cause any significant environmental impacts or changes to the final site appearance; all of the waste would be placed in the existing landfill boundaries; there will be full public consultation concerning the proposed changes by way of a public information workshop and by way of a public hearing required pursuant to the provisions of the EPA; there is insufficient time to allow consideration of the proposed changes under anything other than normal EPA practices governing private sector sites prior to the site reaching capacity in December 1989 . 7 . 2 .4 On March 13 , 1989, Council adopted a resolution to advise the Minister of the Environment of its opposition to the granting of Laidlaw's request to exempt the Infill proposal from the provisions of the EAA. 7 . 2 . 5 By letter dated July 20, 1989, Mr. James Bradley, the previous Minister of the Environment, advised Laidlaw that the Infill proposal would not be designated pursuant to the EAA. The Infill project would be permitted to proceed directly to an application and a hearing under Part V of the EPA, subject to the following conditions: a maximum 10 percent increase in the allowable weekly tonnage ; the lifespan of the Infill Project to be no more than two years, which would allow sufficient time to complete the environmental assessment for the long term expansion; final contours of the Infill project should not significantly exceed the existing approved contours; effective and meaningful public consultation should continue through the EA (Environmental Assessment) process with respect to the Major Expansion proposal, including providing the Committee of Clarke Constituents 5 20 REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 15 with copies of all draft and final documentation submitted to the Ministry; recycling bins to be provided at the site; Official Plan and Zoning amendments must be obtained under the Planning Act from Durham Region, and well as any other municipal planning approvals which might be required; mitigation measures are implemented in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources to ensure that Graham Creek and other adjacent sensitive ecosystems are protected from environmental impacts; National Energy Board approval for relocation of the on- site pipelines; consultation with Environment Canada to determine if the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process applies to the relocation of the pipelines. 7 . 2 . 6 By letter also dated July 20, 1989, the previous Minister of the Environment advised the Committee of Clarke Constituents, that Laidlaw's original request for a 300% increase in capacity had been rejected due to the potential for significant environmental concerns. The letter indicated that the potential environmental impacts associated with Laidlaw's scaled down proposal would reflect a minor expansion and would be in keeping with the Ministry's policy on EA exemptions for minor landfill expansions. This policy allows proponents minor expansions for up to five years provided that a long-term EA is under preparation, effective public consultation is undertaken, and recycling efforts are implemented. 7 . 2 .7 On December 21, 1989 , Laidlaw submitted an 'Application for a Certificate of Approval for a Waste Disposal Site (Landfill) ' to the Ministry of the Environment pursuant to Part V of the EPA. 7 . 2 . 8 In a letter dated January 7 , 1992 to Mayor Hamre, the present Minister of the Environment advised that Laidlaw's Major REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 16 Expansion proposal will be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. The Minister also advised that she had reviewed the previous government's decision to not designate the Infill application under the EAA, and indicated that, in her opinion, the Infill application met the Ministry's requirements for interim use of landfills. She advised that she was in agreement that the EAA will not apply to the Infill expansion. 7 . 3 Request for Consent Pursuant to the Regional Municipality of Durham Act 7 . 3 . 1 The Regional Municipality of Durham Act [Section 144 (3) ] requires Regional Council's consent in respect of new facilities for the receiving, dumping and disposing of waste in the Region. The Act [Section 144 (4) ] also contains provisions indicating that, if Regional Council refuses its consent, the applicant may appeal such refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board. 7 . 3 . 2 In May 1989 , Laidlaw's solicitor formally requested the consent of Regional Council for the Infill proposal and for the Major Expansion Proposal. On November 1, 1989 , Regional Council resolved to advise the Ministry of the, Environment that the request for consent was premature until such time as the related matters under the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act have been dealt with. 7 . 4 Request For a Hearing Pursuant to the Consolidated Hearings Act 7 . 4 . 1 The Consolidated Hearings Act applies in respect of an undertaking for which more than one hearing or tribunal is required under the various provincial legislation to which the Consolidated Hearings Act applies. On July 26, 1989, Laidlaw formally requested the Environmental Assessment Board REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 17 for a hearing pursuant to the Consolidated Hearings Act in respect of the following applications: the application pursuant to Part V of the Environmental Protection Act; the application for rezoning; the application for Official Plan Amendment; the application for consent pursuant to the Regional Municipality of Durham Act; the application for construction and installation of the leachate forcemain pursuant to the Ontario Water Resources Act. 7 .4 . 2 On March 1, 1990, Laidlaw's solicitor advised the Consolidated Hearings Board that Laidlaw did not intend, at that time, to proceed before the Board with the applications related to the leachate forcemain. 7 . 4. 3 On September 24 , 1991, the Ministry of the Environment referred the Part V application to the Environmental Assessment Board and requested that a Consolidated Hearing be scheduled at the earliest opportunity. The Consolidated Hearings Board has advised the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that the Official Plan Amendment application must be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board prior to the scheduling of a Consolidated Hearing. As noted earlier, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has not referred the Official Plan amendment application to the OMB as of the writing of this report, although a referral is expected shortly. 7 . 5 Application to the National Energy Board 7 . 5. 1 The Infill proposal involves the rerouting of two TransCanada Pipeline high pressure natural gas pipelines, which currently run between the two mounds of waste, to the south of the existing landfill operation. On September 8, 1989, TCPL submitted an application to the National Energy Board (NEB) for approval of their 1990 construction schedule, which � LJ REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 18 included the rerouting project. In November 1989, the NEB advised TCPL that they will be deferring consideration of the relocation project pending municipal and provincial approvals of the Infill proposal. 7 . 5. 2 Correspondence from the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO) in July 1989 indicated that the proposed pipeline rerouting will be examined by NEB Staff for safety and environmental concerns, amongst other matters. In reviewing the application for pipeline relocation, NEB Staff would apply the Environmental Assessment Review Process and determine the level of assessment required. 7 . 5. 3 NEB Staff have recently advised Town Staff that there is currently no active application from TCPL being considered by the Board for the relocation of the two gas pipelines. 8 . OTHER APPLICATIONS 8. 1 Laidlaw have submitted or have indicated their intention to submit other applications related to its landfill site in Newcastle, as discussed below. 8 . 2 Major Expansion Proposal 8 . 2 . 1 Laidlaw have indicated their intention to apply to expand their landfilling operation onto approximately 48 ha (119 acres) of land to the south of their current site (Attachment No. 6) . Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications will be required for the proposed Expansion, as will an application to the Ministry of the Environment pursuant to the provisions of the EPA. The Major Expansion Proposal has not yet been designated as being subject to the requirements of the EAA, although Laidlaw have apparently indicated to the Ministry that they will voluntarily adhere to the requirements of the Act. To date, Laidlaw have not submitted applications to either the Town or the Region, nor have they submitted draft Environmental Assessment documents to the Ministry in � IT REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 19 connection with their Major Expansion proposal. However, they have initiated their 'Pre-Submission Consultation' as required by Ministry policy. 8. 2 . 2 By letter dated February 28, 1989, Dr. M. Michael, the Regional Commissioner of Planning advised Laidlaw's consultant that Regional Planning Committee supported the submission of a single Official Plan Amendment application in respect of the Infill and Expansion proposals. Dr. Michael suggested to the consultant that serious consideration be given to proceeding in this matter. 8. 3 Closure of the Road Allowance Between Concessions 2 and 3 8. 3 . 1 In November 1990, the solicitor for Laidlaw submitted a formal request to the Town for the closure of the unopened road allowance between Concessions 2 and 3 , Lot 11, former Township of Clarke. The solicitor further indicated Laidlaw's interest in purchasing the road allowance at such time as it is closed. 8. 3 . 2 On January 7 , 1991, Committee considered Report WD-3-91 in respect of Laidlaw's request for closure of the road allowance. The report noted that the unopened road allowance divides the land which is subject of Laidlaw's Major Expansion proposal. Council resolved to deny Laidlaw's request at its meeting of January 14 , 1991. 8 . 4 Proposed Leachate Forcemain - Official Plan Amendment Application 89-971 D 8. 4 . 1 On August 16, 1989, McDermott & Associates on behalf of Laidlaw, submitted an application to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan to provide for the construction of a leachate forcemain from the Laidlaw landfill to the Graham Creek Water Pollution Control Plant in Newcastle Village, and to allocate capacity in the plant for the treatment of the leachate. The leachate forcemain will also require approval from the � L REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 20 Ministry of the Environment pursuant to the Ontario Water Resources Act. 8 . 4 . 2 Laidlaw initially intended to have the leachate forcemain serve both the Infill proposal and the Major Expansion proposal. However, in a letter to the Consolidated Hearings Board dated March 1, 1990, Laidlaw's solicitor advised that Laidlaw did not intend to proceed at the current time with the Official Plan Amendment application and the Ontario Water Resources Act application related to the leachate forcemain. Laidlaw's solicitor advised the Region, by letter dated May 4, 1990, that her client did not wish to withdraw the Official Plan Amendment application related to the forcemain and requested that it be dealt with in due course. 8 . 4 . 3 Staff Report PD-32-92 , also to be considered by Committee at its January 20, 1992 meeting, deals with the Official Plan Amendment application in respect of the leachate forcemain proposal. 8 . 5 Use of Town Road Allowances for the Leachate Forcemain 8 . 5. 1 By letter dated April 26, 1989 , the firm of Henderson, Paddon and Associates, on behalf of Laidlaw, requested the Town's approval to locate portions of the proposed forcemain within the road allowances under the Town's jurisdiction. On May 15, 1989, Council resolved to deny the request. 9 . SUPPORTING TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS 9 . 1 In March 1989, Laidlaw advised the Town that, in as much as they were intending to seek approval for the Infill project under the Environmental Protection Act, and not the Environmental Assessment Act, any documentation filed in support of the Infill project would focus on the definition of the 'natural environment' provided by the EPA. The EPA definition of the 'natural environment' only refers to air, land and water. r r � REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 21 9 . 2 Staff subsequently advised Laidlaw that, notwithstanding the narrow definition of the environment in the EPA, a much broader definition would be applied in the evaluation of the application to amend the Official Plan. The Town and the Region would require sufficient information to evaluate whether the proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses, and to evaluate its impact on the broader definition of the environment as utilized in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Staff further advised that the Town would consider the review of the applications to amend the planning documents as important as, if not more important than, the application under the EPA or the EAA. Staff requested Laidlaw to submit a full analysis of the Infill proposal, including transportation impact, social impact, economic impact, and impact on the natural environment. 9. 3 A total of nine technical reports prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan and other consultants retained by Laidlaw were submitted in support of the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications for the Infill proposal, as follows: Development, Operations and Closure Report Hydrogeology Transportation Impact Assessment Government Consultation Report Visual Impact Assessment and End Use Planning Noise Impact Assessment Dust Impact Assessment Public Consultation Report Social Analysis Report 9 . 4 Draft versions of these documents were submitted to the Town and the Region between June 2, 1989 and August 4, 1989 . The final documents were submitted on December 22 , 1989. Three Addendum Reports have also been submitted - an Addendum to the Hydrogeology Report on January 23 , 1991, and two response documents to the comments of fthe Ministry of the Environment E 121 / REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 22 on February 13 , 1991 and August 12 , 1991. 7 to this Report. These same documents were also submitted by Laidlaw to the Ministry of the Environment as supporting documentation for their application under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. 9 . 5 The consulting firm of Acres International was retained by the Town to review and provide comments on the reports submitted by Laidlaw related to 'Development, Operations, and Closure' , 'Hydrogeology' , 'Noise Impact' , and 'Dust Impact' . 9 . 6 A brief summary of the information provided in the nine technical reports and the Addendum is attached to this Report as Attachment No. 7 . 10. PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS 10. 1 A large number of submissions objecting to Laidlaw's Infill proposal have been made to the Town and the Region of Durham. As well, letters objecting to the Infill proposal and related applications have been submitted to Laidlaw and their consultants, the Premier's office, the Ministry of the Environment, the National Energy Board, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office and TransCanada Pipelines. 10. 2 The following is a summary of the concerns expressed by the public: the existing landfill operation is an old gravel pit which has never been subject to a comprehensive environmental assessment; a new landfill operation would not be approved at the site under current environmental regulations; there is no record of the type of waste which was disposed of at the existing landfill prior to the operation being licensed by the Ministry of the Environment; REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 23 the weight of accumulated evidence by technical experts and area residents indicates that the site is not environmentally suitable for a landfill operation because of its hydrogeological complexity; the proximity of the landfill site to Graham Creek; Laidlaw have prolonged the life of the existing site by reducing the amount of waste being received, and by depositing waste on the previously closed south mound; the Infill proposal should be subject to a full review under the Environmental Assessment Act; the Infill proposal and the Expansion proposal should be subject to one hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act; the relocation of the pipelines should be subject to a full environmental assessment; approval of the Infill application would enhance Laidlaw's chances of obtaining approval for the Expansion application; the Ontario Environmental Assessment and Advisory Committee Report on the Ganaraska Watershed urged a temporary moratorium on official plan amendments for more intensive land uses in the Ganaraska headwaters; if the existing leachate treatment system at the site is sufficient, why did Laidlaw originally propose to dispose of leachate at the Graham Creek Water Pollution Control Plant; the negative social impact on the community will persist if the landfill operation is permitted to continue; possible contamination of groundwater and surface water, and agricultural land by contaminants from the landfill; the negative impact on the surrounding agricultural community; dust and noise impacts and the effect of increased truck traffic on local traffic and school buses; the social, environmental and technical impacts related to the Infill proposal will not be properly reviewed REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 24 given the current waste management crisis in the Greater Toronto Area; most of the waste received at the site does not originate in Durham Region; previous applications for expansion of the landfill were denied by the Town and the Region for environmental reasons. 10. 3 The submissions made in respect of the Infill proposal are summarized on Attachment No. 8 to this report. 11. PUBLIC MEETINGS 11. 1 The first Public Meeting in respect of the subject Rezoning Application was held on July 17 , 1989 . It is noted that the Public Meeting related to Laidlaw's original proposal for a seven year life span for the Infill project. 11.2 Eight residents spoke in objection to the Infill proposal. Concern was expressed regarding the site's proximity to Graham Creek and the possible contamination of the groundwater table, the fact that the site has never been subjected to a full environmental review, impacts related to truck traffic and noise, and the devaluation of property values. 11. 3 No residents spoke in support of the subject application. Mr. John Kennedy of Marshall Macklin Monaghan addressed the Committee on behalf of Laidlaw, and noted that they have attempted to address and resolve the concerns of the residents. 11. 4 Committee also considered Staff Report PD-178-89 in respect of the subject application. The Report noted that not all of the supporting documentation had been submitted as of the date of the Public Meeting. Staff therefore recommended in the Report that a further Public Meeting be held at such time as REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 25 the supporting documentation is reviewed and agency comments have been received. 11. 5 Committee resolved to refer the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications back to Staff for further processing and the preparation of a subsequent report upon the receipt of all circulation comments and technical information. 11. 6 Public Notices regarding the holding of the second Public Meeting on January 20, 1992 were mailed to all landowners within 120 metres of the lands owned by Laidlaw and to all residents and groups who have made submissions in respect of the Infill proposal. 12 . PREVIOUS COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 12 . 1 Council has adopted a number of resolutions related to the various undertakings proposed by Laidlaw at their Newcastle landfill and the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The intent of these resolutions was as follows: to request the Provincial Government to require the Infill and Expansion proposals by Laidlaw to be fully subject to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act; to request the Provincial Government to introduce and enact legislation to amend the Environmental Assessment Act to require all private sector undertakings related to the establishment or expansion of a landfill, to be subject to the provisions of the Act on the same basis and to the same extent as a public body or municipality; to advise the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that the Town of Newcastle must be provided adequate time to prepare final comments on the Infill proposal prior to the Official Plan Amendment Application being referred to the Ontario Municipal Board and a Consolidated Hearing being scheduled. REPORT NO. : PD-26-92 PAGE 26 12 .2 Staff note that the Infill proposal was not designated as subject to the Environmental Assessment Act and that, to date, no action has been taken by the government in respect of the requested amendment to the EAA. As noted earlier, the Minister of the Environment has recently advised the Mayor that Laidlaw's Major Expansion proposal will be designated as subject to the EAA. 13 . AGENCY COMMENTS 13 . 1 The draft and final versions of the supporting technical reports were circulated by the Planning Department and the Region of Durham to various agencies for their review and comment. 13 . 2 Given the considerable background documentation submitted, Town and Regional Planning Staff agreed to include the background reports only with the circulation of the Official Plan Amendment application, and to forward to each agency circulated, only those reports directly related to their interests, although a full list of all reports available was also provided., Both the draft and the final versions of the background reports were provided to the circulated agencies. 13 . 3 The following agencies indicated no objection to the subject applications: C.P. Rail 13 . 4 The Ministry of Agriculture and Food stated that it could not foresee any adverse impacts on agriculture, noting that the Infill area is located between the closed and operating landfills and has already been disturbed by the pipeline easement. 13 . 5 The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority indicated it is primarily concerned with sediment and stormwater control for the proposed Infill operation. The Authority indicated no REPORT NO. : PD-27-92 PAGE 27 difficulty with the sedimentation and stormwater control measures proposed. 13 . 6 TransNorthern Pipelines indicated no objection, but noted that it is important that landfilling operations not interfere with access to their right-of-way. 13 .7 Interprovincial Pipeline Company noted that their pipeline runs to the south of the proposed project and does not appear to be affected. They indicated however that Laidlaw should contact the Company in advance of any activity on the right- of-way which could affect the safety of the project. 13 . 8 The Ministry of Natural Resources noted that the protection of Graham Creek is being addressed through the stormwater management and sediment control measures proposed. The Ministry requested that the current 'Environmental Protection' zone on Graham Creek be retained to allow for a vegetated buffer between the watercourse and the proposed Infill area. 13 .9 The Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education (Public School Board) noted that they have several buses in the area servicing local schools and that the expansion would result in more heavy trucks. The Board indicated no objection to the proposal, but requested that proper signage be erected indicating that there are students walking along the roadway in the area of the landfill. 13 . 10 The Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland-Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board indicated that they have a general concern with the safety of trucks hauling waste on roads that their buses also use, but feel that these and other safety issues should be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. However, based on the information contained in the 'Transportation Impact Assessment' submitted by Laidlaw, the Board does not feel that the additional truck traffic i ti v ., J REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 28 generated by the proposed Infill operation would unreasonably endanger or inhibit their operations. 13 . 11 The Town of Newcastle Fire Department noted a concern with the availability of water for firefighting purposes. 13 . 12 The Ministry of Transportation disputed information provided in the 'Transportation Impact Assessment' Report which stated that Highway 2 is to be widened, and that a higher than normal accident rate is found at the CPR subway east of Newcastle Village. 13 . 13 The Region of Durham Department of Health Services indicated that it would withhold its comments until the position of the Ministry of the Environment is known. 13 . 14 . 1 The Town of Newcastle Public Works Department noted that the background reports, which compare the existing operation with the proposed Infill operation, should also compare the existing operation with the operation closed. 13 . 14 .2 The Department also reviewed and provided comments on the 'Transportation Impact Assessment' submitted by Laidlaw. It was noted that Town roads, in particular Concession Road 4, were not designed to accommodate significant truck traffic and that, in their present condition and level of maintenance, the roads cannot support the truck traffic related to the Infill proposal. The Department also stated that the upgrading of the roads through spot repairs, as suggested by the report, was not reasonable. 13 . 14 . 3 The Department also noted that the report describes 'gravel trucks' as being the source of local residents' concerns with respect to speeding, and also as an additional source of pavement distress. The Department notes there are no gravel pits in the vicinity and therefore recommends that a count of � ' 4 REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 29 gravel truck traffic be undertaken to support these comments. 13 . 14 .4 The Department objected to approval of the rezoning application unless the applicant bears the full costs of upgrading all existing Town roads on the haulage route. The Department has requested that the applicant prepare a report which would identify the nature and extent of the road upgrading works necessary to minimize the impact of increased truck traffic. 14 . MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT COMMENTS 14 . 1 Comments on the Official Plan Amendment Application 14. 1. 1 The Ministry of the Environment (Approvals and Planning Section) indicated that they would not be in a position to comment on the acceptability of the subject Official Plan Amendment application until the acceptability of the application submitted under Part V of the EPA had been determined. 14 . 1. 2 By letter dated October 2 , 1991, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs requested the Planning Coordinator for the Ministry of the Environment to forward their comments on the Official Plan Amendment Application by November 4 , 1991. The Ministry of the Environment had not provided the requested comments as of the writing of this report. 14 . 2 Comments Relating to Technical Documents 14 . 2 . 1 The Ministry has provided three separate set of comments on the original and subsequent technical reports submitted by Laidlaw, as summarized below. General Comments 14 . 2 . 2 December 4, 1990: The Ministry indicated that when applying for the expansion of an existing landfill, it must be demonstrated that the existing site is operating in an environmentally sound manner. The Ministry also recommended DJ REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 30 that the application under Part V of the EPA not be forwarded to the Environmental Assessment Board until such time as the outstanding technical issues are satisfied. 14 . 2 . 3 May 28, 1991: The Ministry noted that there should be two impact assessments: one with the Infill and one without any further landfilling. This would permit the extent and the risks of the potential additional impacts to be assessed and a comparison made between the two options. Hydrogeology 14 . 2 . 4 December 41 1990: The Ministry's comments are lengthy and quite technical in nature. Of particular note is that the Ministry indicated that a clear definition must be provided of the site's subsurface and associated groundwater flow and leachate migration for the determination of any existing or potential negative off-site effects. It must also be proven that contingency plans are viable and that leachate can be effectively collected and disposed of. 14 . 2 . 5 The Ministry further noted that the leachate sample collected by Laidlaw from the leachate collector system was diluted with groundwater. It was recommended that a representative sample of pure leachate be collected for analysis and used for worst case scenario predictions. 14 . 2 . 6 May 28, 1991: The Ministry, in commenting on the 'Hydrogeology Addendum Reports' , identified a number of concerns and recommended to Laidlaw that these concerns be resolved prior to the Consolidated Hearing. In particular, the Ministry indicated that it is not well known what is happening with contaminated groundwater at the site, and noted that the data seems to suggest that contamination at some key sampling points and at depth, is increasing. At a number of places, contamination is already below the "so-called impermeable boundary" between the upper lacustrine sands and the lower 5 6 REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 31 till. The Ministry indicated that a number of shallow boreholes are still needed near Graham Creek on both sides to better delineate the groundwater flow and chemistry. 14 . 2 . 7 The Ministry indicated that, although the leachate collection system was constructed to intercept groundwater flow towards Graham Creek, a number of leachate seeps were still observed in late April 1991. It was noted that this may be due to the very limited extent of the lower collection system which should be extended to both the east and west. 14 .2 .8 The Ministry indicated that the leachate should be better characterized, noting that the presented leachate analysis reflected diluted leachate rather than pure leachate. The Ministry also indicated that the critical contaminants must be determined and the contaminant plumes delineated in three dimensions. The Ministry recommended that a couple of test holes be drilled at strategic locations to establish, among other things, true leachate concentrations. Information of this nature is necessary to carry out a potential future groundwater quality impact assessment and a meaningful predictive monitoring program. 14 . 2 . 9 September 3, 1991: The Ministry noted that there are still both surface and groundwater issues which remain outstanding. In particular, the basic unresolved issue remains to be the worst case flow and concentration of leachate which may end up in Graham Creek during low water flow conditions in the creek and the impact of this in terms of Provincial Water Quality Objectives. The Ministry also referred to the consultant's proposal that groundwater flow-through from up- gradient areas from the south provides considerable dilution to the leachate. The Ministry had suggested to Laidlaw that additional information which would assist in the resolution of these issues, including the initial strength of the leachate prior to dilution with groundwater, could be obtained REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 32 by drilling into the existing waste mounds. Laidlaw have apparently advised the Ministry that they do not feel that the risks associated with drilling into the waste would be worth taking in order to obtain satisfactory answers. Staff note that the Ministry's position on the issue of drilling into the waste mounds is not clear at the present time, although Laidlaw's application under Part V of the EPA has been referred by the Ministry for a hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board. Noise Impact Assessment 14 . 2 . 10 December 41 1990: The Ministry noted that the noise control measures recommended by the 'Noise Impact Assessment' report are acceptable provided they are properly incorporated into the final design. Dust Impact Analysis 14 . 2 . 11 In its original comments, the Ministry questioned the accuracy of the calculations in the 'Dust Impact Analysis' used to determine the dust concentrations resulting from existing site operations, and the construction, operation and maintenance phases of the Infill proposal. It was also indicated that wind data from Port Hope and Oshawa would be more representative of the meteorological conditions at the site, rather than the Trenton-based data which was used. 14. 2 . 12 In response to the Ministry's comments, Laidlaw provided revised calculations in their first Addendum Report. Laidlaw also indicated that the type and frequency of data collected at the Trenton station was more suited to the data requirements of the dispersion model used to assess the air quality impacts. The Ministry did not provide any subsequent comments on the dust impact analysis. Staff note however, that it is not clear at this point, whether Laidlaw's response has been accepted by the Ministry. `l �S REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 33 Social Analysis Report 14. 2 . 13 The Ministry noted that the scope of the social analysis as presented in the 'Social Analysis Report' appeared to be adequate for the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act. However, it was suggested that the report provide a site specific assessment of the disruption of activities and enjoyment of residential property resulting from existing and Infill operations, and not rely on generic descriptive accounts of landfill sites. 14 . 2 . 14 The Ministry also noted that the existing landfill is intended to eventually close under the conditions of its Provisional Certificate of Approval. Therefore, by only measuring the impact of the increase the Infill would represent over existing operations, the Social Analysis Report has not adequately compared the social impacts of the 'closed landfill' scenario with those resulting from continuing landfill operations for two years. Economic Analysis 14 . 2 . 15 The Ministry also noted that the Economic Analysis should be wider in scope and should include an assessment of the baseline economic environment. The Ministry indicated that the report should address the fact that impacts on the natural environment may also have an impact on the economic environment in terms of the value of produce and livestock, the value of other economic enterprises, property values and employment. Again, Staff note that it is not clear whether the Ministry's concerns have been satisfied by Laidlaw. No further documentation has been received by the Town and therefore Staff assume that this issue remains outstanding. 15. STAFF COMMENTS 15. 1 It is apparent from the preceding discussion that numerous issues related to both the existing Laidlaw landfill and the Infill proposal have been raised by technical agencies and REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 34 the public. All of these issues are significant and warrant a thorough review and discussion. However, a comprehensive discussion of all issues relevant to the discussion of the Infill proposal is not practical in ,the context of this Report. Accordingly, Staff's comments on the Infill proposal will focus on the issues which, from the Town's perspective, are of importance to the review and evaluation of the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications. 15. 2 Need for the Official Plan Amendment 15. 2 . 1 It has been Laidlaw's position through the entire review process, that the existing landfill is a legal non-conforming use within the context of the Planning Act, the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Town of Newcastle Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63 . Laidlaw have argued that, due to this legal non-conforming status, an amendment to the Regional Official Plan is not required to permit the interim expansion of the site. Staff do not agree with Laidlaw's position on this matter. 15.2 . 2 Laidlaw have indicated that the Official Plan Amendment application, which seeks a 'Waste Management' designation for the site on Map A5 of the Regional Official Plan, was submitted to clarify the legal use of the landfill. It is Laidlaw's position that the Amendment application was only submitted at the request of the Town and the Region. 15. 2 . 3 Staff note that the Planning Act permits legal non-conforming uses to be continued notwithstanding the passing of a restrictive zoning by-law. Section 34 (9) of the Act states that no zoning by-law passed under Section 34 applies "to prevent the use of any land, building or structure for any purpose prohibited by the by-law if such land, building or structure was lawfully used for such purpose on the day of the passing of the by-law, so long as it continues to be used for that purpose" . 540 REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 35 15.2 . 4 As noted above, in Staff's opinion, Laidlaw does not enjoy legal non-conforming use rights with respect to the TCPL easement area between the north and south landfill mounds. Accordingly, contrary to Laidlaw's submission, this is simply a case in which the applicant requires an Official Plan Amendment and a zoning by-law amendment if its business objectives of extending the landfill between the two mounds is to be achieved. Durham Regional Official Plan 15. 2 . 5 Section 16. 6. 5 of the Durham Regional Official Plan (1976) also defines the rights of legal non-conforming uses. This section permits area municipal Councils, at their sole discretion, to zone to permit the continuation, expansion or enlargement of existing uses, or the variations to similar uses, which do not conform to the designations and provisions of the Official Plan. The zoning of such uses however, is subject to four conditions, two of which are relevant to the review of the Laidlaw Infill proposal, as follows: a) (such uses) "have no adverse effect on the present uses of the surrounding lands or the implementation of the provisions of this Plan; C) (such uses) "are accessible by a public road . . . . . . . which is of a standard construction adequate to provide for the additional traffic generated by the proposed use" . The Plan further states that each case will be considered on its own merits by the Council of the respective area municipality and may be subject to site plan controls. 15. 2 . 6 If the proposed rezoning fails any of the conditions outlined by the Plan, then the application cannot proceed under the provisions of Section 16 . 6. 5, thereby necessitating the need for an amendment to the Official Plan to permit the proposed use. REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 36 15. 2 . 7 A review of historic evidence related to the existing landfill indicates that the trucks hauling waste to the site have had a noticeable impact on the condition of area roads. During the review of the previous application submitted by Regional Reclaimers in 1983, it was noted that the Town roads being used by the trucks hauling waste had deteriorated. This assessment has been confirmed by the comments of the Town's Public Works Department on the Laidlaw Infill proposal. 15. 2. 8 There is also a history of impact on the surrounding community related to the existing landfill. These impacts are acknowledged by Laidlaw in the Social Analysis Report and the Public Consultation Report submitted in support of the Infill application. Residents have expressed concerns with respect to noise and dust impacts related to site operations, as well as gulls which are attracted to the landfill which foul property and carry waste to neighbouring properties. Residents living along the access routes to the existing landfill have also expressed concerns regarding noise, dust and litter from the trucks hauling waste, as well as speeding trucks. The fact that these same access routes are also school bus routes has also been raised as a public safety concern. In 1981, area residents petitioned Council to re-route the trucks hauling waste to the landfill. 15. 2 . 9 It is also worth noting that, although the existing landfill has been in existence for almost forty years, it has never been recognized in municipal planning documents. The former Township of Clarke in 1968 and the Town of Newcastle in 1984 did not recognize the landfill in their Zoning By-laws, while the Region of Durham did not recognize the landfill in either of the 1976 or the proposed 1991 Official Plan. This lack of recognition represents an implied disapproval of the landfill by the municipal governments of the time. 5 REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 37 15.2 . 10 Based on the factors discussed above, it is apparent that there is a significant history of impacts and concerns related to the existing landfill site. The proposed rezoning application for the Infill application does not meet the tests of Section 16. 6. 5 (c) , related to the suitability of area roads, and Section 16. 6. 5 (a) , which deals with the adverse impact on surrounding lands. Therefore an amendment to the Regional Official Plan is definitely necessary for the proper assessment of the Infill proposal. 15. 3 Separation of environmental issues from land use planning 15. 3 . 1 Laidlaw and their consultants have also maintained throughout the review of the Infill proposal that the matters related to the environmental integrity of the landfill, including site hydrogeology, is exclusively a concern for the Ministry of the Environment, and not a concern for the Town of Newcastle under the Planning Act. Laidlaw have argued that the Town's primary role is to comment on the land use planning aspects related to the proposed use of the pipeline easement as a "landfill footprint" , and not to take into account environmental matters. They have also urged the Town to provide its final position on the Infill proposal prior to the Ministry of the Environment providing its final comments on the application. 15. 3 . 2 It is Staff's opinion that ' land use planning' deals with more than the physical use of a specific parcel of land. This is clear from the definition of an "official plan" given in the Planning Act, which states that it is "a document approved by the Minister, containing objectives and policies established primarily to provide guidance for the physical development of a municipality or a part thereof while having regard to relevant social, economic and environmental matters" . 15. 3 . 3 The issue of compatibility with the natural environment and other land uses must be of significant concern in the review of any Official Plan Amendment application. It is self- . j REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 38 evident that the land use issues related to the proposed expansion of the existing landfill site cannot be addressed in the absence of information in respect of the environmental integrity of the existing site and the Infill proposal: To do otherwise would be contrary to the requirements of both the Planning Act and the Durham Regional Official Plan. 15.4 Environmental integrity of the landfill site Suitability of the site for landfilling 15. 4 . 1 It is useful, in a discussion on environmental concerns related to the Laidlaw landfill, to briefly review the history of the existing landfill. Landfilling commenced on the lands, which was previously used for gravel extraction, during the mid-1950's when there were few, if any, controls imposed on the type of waste received. There is limited knowledge as to the waste material deposited at the landfill prior to the issuance of the first Provisional Certificate of Approval for the landfill in 1971. This is illustrated by a condition on the first Certificate which requires "that the owner submit details of the origins of the 'Industrial Waste' and 'Hauled Liquid Industrial Waste' in terms of Company of origin and nature of the wastes" . Laidlaw's own hydrogeological consultant has indicated that they do not feel the risk of drilling into the existing waste at the landfill is worth the risk involved. 15. 4 . 2 Staff share the concern expressed by area residents that no detailed technical analysis of the site was undertaken prior to waste being deposited to determine if soil and groundwater conditions make the site suitable for landfilling purposes. The Ministry of the Environment has continued to issue Certificates of Approval for the landfill in the absence of any comprehensive and detailed analysis of the site's suitability for landfilling. �� 4 REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 39 15.4 . 3 Method of Leachate Treatment One of the most serious environmental concerns related to the existing landfill is the proximity of the landfill mounds to Graham Creek and the possibility that leachate could contaminate the Creek. It is obviously a significant point of concern for both Laidlaw and the Ministry of the Environment as reflected in the proposed relocation of a portion of the Creek, the extension of the leachate collector system, and the comments of the Ministry itself. Pools of leachate have been found on the floodplain of the creek. Laidlaw can only "retrofit" environmental safeguards such as the leachate collection system to deal with contamination problems at the landfill. 15. 4 . 4 Laidlaw originally proposed to transport leachate from the existing landfill and the Infill to the Graham Creek Water Pollution Control Plant for treatment. Staff question why Laidlaw would pursue such an expensive option for leachate treatment in the absence of any approvals for the Major Expansion proposal, if the existing on-site method of leachate treatment is as satisfactory as Laidlaw claim. This in effect is evidence that the existing treatment facilities on-site for the treatment of the leachate are inadequate. The 'Leachate Forcemain Report' stated that Laidlaw wish to pipe the leachate to the Treatment Plant "to protect the environment, namely Graham Creek" . The Report concluded that the on-site treatment of leachate with a discharge to Graham Creek appears to be "less desirable in the long term, based on the increased risk to the environment" . 15 . 4 . 5 Ministry of the Environment Comments The Industrial Approvals Branch of the Ministry of the Environment, which is responsible for reviewing and commenting on the various technical documents related to the Laidlaw Infill proposal, has not provided the Town with a final position on the environmental integrity of the Infill. Their �� REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 40 most recent written comments indicate that there are still both surface and ground water issues which remain outstanding. Approvals Branch Staff have verbally advised Town Staff that the Ministry and Laidlaw have reached an impasse over various technical issues, especially in relation to surface water standards and the quality of discharge to Graham Creek, and that the application under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act has been referred to the Environmental Assessment Board for resolution of these issues. Ministry Staff have also indicated that they will advise the Board of the outstanding unresolved concerns. 15 .4 . 6 The Approvals and Planning Branch of the Ministry of the Environment is responsible for providing comments on the Official Plan Amendment application related to the Laidlaw Infill proposal. They have indicated in written comments that they will not be a position to comment on the acceptability of the proposed amendment until the acceptability of the Part V application has been determined. 15. 4 . 7 Acres International Limited's Comments Acres International Limited, the Town's consultant, has advised that the leachate collection system and the Rapid Infiltration Basins at the landfill are not effectively collecting and treating the leachate prior to discharge to Graham Creek. Leachate from the existing landfill site is escaping virtually untreated into the creek, and that dilution is the primary attenuation measure acting on the leachate. Leachate from the proposed Infill area would also end up in Graham Creek virtually untreated. 15. 4 . 8 Staff had previously indicated to Laidlaw and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that the Town needed the final technical comments of the Ministry of the Environment on the Infill proposal and the related technical reports prior to finalizing a position on the rezoning application and the Official Plan 541 REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 41 Amendment application. It is apparent that the Ministry will not be providing the Town with final comments on the Infill proposal. However, Staff have received the technical advice of our consultant, Acres International, on the evidence presented by Laidlaw to date and on the Ministry's comments on same. In light of the imminence of a referral of the Official Plan Amendment application to the Ontario Municipal Board, Staff consider it necessary to make these recommendations on the Infill proposal based on the information available. 15. 5 Other Impacts 15.5 . 1 It is Laidlaw's position that their analysis of the impacts of the Infill proposal on the local community, including area roads, needs only to document the additional impact which would result from the approval of the Infill project. They have indicated that, in their opinion, the analysis of a 'no infill' scenario is not required. Laidlaw are basing this position on the fact that, under the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act, detailed studies involving economic, social and cultural conditions are not required, and that the EPA does not require the evaluation of alternatives, including the 'no landfill' alternative. Laidlaw have also indicated that the existing landfill enjoys legal non- conforming status, and therefore only the additional impacts related to the Infill proposal need to be examined. 15. 5. 2 The Social Impact Report submitted in support of the Infill proposal uses the impacts associated with the level of activity permitted under the current Certificate of Approval as the base level for assessing the impact the Infill project would have on the local community. Therefore, the Report only addresses the additional disruption in day-to-day activities and the use and enjoyment of property that area residents would experience if the Infill project were to proceed. Similarly, the Transportation Impact Report does not address J A REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 42 the deterioration in the condition of Town roads which has resulted over the years from trucks hauling waste to the existing landfill. As well, the Noise Impact Assessment does not adequately address the effect of poor road surfaces on truck noise. 15. 5. 3 In Staff's opinion, Laidlaw's submissions are not sound. Any analysis of the impacts of the Infill proposal on the social and economic environment of the local community must use the 'closed/no landfill' scenario as a base of comparison for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Certificate of Approval for the existing landfill does not permit landfilling to continue at the existing landfill indefinitely. Once the final contours for the waste mounds permitted by the Certificate are achieved, the landfill must close. The local community, which has endured the impacts of the existing landfill for a number of years, has come to expect the landfill operation to be closed within the foreseeable future. 15. 5. 4 As well, over the past several months, the local community has become accustomed to life without the landfill. In December 1988, Laidlaw voluntarily reduced the amount of waste it was receiving at the landfill to ensure the continued operation of the landfill until the approvals process for the Infill project has been completed. In October 1990, the volume of waste being received at the landfill was considerably reduced, apparently after a request by Laidlaw for an Emergency Certificate of Approval was denied by the Ministry of the Environment. For example, during the summer of 1991, virtually no waste was received at the landfill. In reality then, over the past several months, the local community has lived with a 'closed landfill' situation. 15. 5. 4 This last issue is of critical importance to the evaluation of the social impacts related to the Infill proposal. The Social Analysis Report describes the 'existing' level of r' REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 43 impact related to the landfill as being that associated with the level of landfilling activity permitted by the Certificate of Approval (816 tonnes of waste per week) , while the 'de facto' existing impact on the local community is nil. If the Infill project is approved, the volume of waste being received at the landfill could realistically jump from zero to 895 tonnes per week overnight. This would represent, for example, an increase in the number of trucks travelling to the landfill from one truck per week to as many as 265 per week, an astronomical increase and certainly considerably more than the 10% increase described in the Social Analysis Report. This dramatic increase in the level of impact to be endured by the local community cannot be justified and therefore must be reflected in the Social Analysis report. 15. 5. 5 It is worth noting that the most significant reason for the long period of time it has taken to review the Infill proposal has been Laidlaw's apparent difficulty in satisfying the Ministry of the Environment's concerns related to site hydrogeology. The Ministry advised Laidlaw that the existing landfill must be shown to be working satisfactorily in order for the Infill proposal to be approved. 15.5. 6 Staff are also concerned that the Social Analysis Report does not document whether the impacts on the local community associated with the existing landfill are within a reasonable level. By not adequately addressing and defining the historic level of impact, the Report cannot indicate whether or not any increase in activity associated with the Infill would aggravate an already unsatisfactory situation. There is certainly a substantial body of evidence based on public submissions to both Laidlaw and the Town that there are significant impacts on the community associated with the landfilling activity permitted under the existing Certificate of Approval. REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 44 15. 5. 7 Staff are also concerned that neither the Transportation Impact Assessment nor the economic impact component of the Social Analysis Report address the deterioration in the condition of Town roads caused by trucks hauling waste to the site, and the fact that the repair and maintenance of these roads is a direct economic impact that must be borne by the Town. The Transportation Impact Report suggests only that minor repairs be undertaken and does not address the current state of deterioration caused by heavy trucks travelling to the landfill. The cost implications to the Town arising from increased truck traffic and potential road improvements should have been thoroughly evaluated. 15. 5. 8 It is worth noting that Town Staff have advised Laidlaw that a full review of all impacts related to the proposal should be submitted. In March 1989 , Staff advised Laidlaw's consultant that, notwithstanding the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act, the Town and the Region require sufficient information to evaluate the impact of the proposal on the environment and whether the proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses in order to deal with the proposed Official Plan Amendment. Staff requested Laidlaw to undertake a full analysis of the Infill proposal, including transportation impacts, social impacts, economic impacts and the impact on the natural environment. Staff also advised Laidlaw's planning consultants in October 1990, that documentation had not been presented to the Town's satisfaction that the level of impact associated with the existing landfill site was acceptable, and that, in assessing the Infill proposal, the Town may use a 'closed landfill' scenario as the base level of measurement. 16. CONCLUSIONS 16. 1 Based on the issues and concerns discussed in this report, Staff cannot support the request by Laidlaw Waste Systems to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Town of REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 45 Newcastle Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit the existing landfill operation and additional landfilling at the site. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee Franklin Wu, M.C. I.P. Lawrencmiihistrative E Kotseff Director of Planning Chief and Development Officer JAS*DH*FW*df *Attach 10 January 1992 Attachments # 1 Key Map # 2 Existing Landfill Site # 3 Proposed Diversion of Graham Creek # 4 Proposed Final Contours # 5 Profile of Proposed Mound # 6 Major Expansion/Leachate Forcemain Proposal # 7 Summary of Technical Reports Submitted by Laidlaw # 8 Summary of Public Submissions LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE NOTIFIED OF COUNCIL'S DECISION: Mr. Michael J. Pullen, P. Eng. Mr. John Kennedy, M. C. I.P. Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. Marshall Macklin Monaghan 3410 South Service Road Limited P.O. Box 5057 , Station A 80 Commerce Valley Drive East Burlington, Ontario Thornhill, Ontario L7R 3Y8 L3T 7N4 Mr. John McDermott, M.C. I.P. Mr. Brian D. Riddell McDermott & Associates Limited Assistant Deputy Minister Pickering Corporate Centre Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1305 Pickering Parkway 777 Bay Street, 14th Floor Suite 4:6 7n l7l- Toronto, Ontario Pickering, Ontario M5G 2E5 L1V 3P2 ,'�5 T 1 . ) it REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 46 Mr. John Kennedy, M.C. I.P. Mr. Glenn Stapleton Marshall Macklin Monaghan 2100 Stapleton Road Limited R.R. # 8 80 Commerce Valley Drive East Newcastle, Ontario Thornhill, Ontario L1B 1L9 L3T 7N4 Mrs. Patricia Vickery Mr. Brian D. Riddell 43 Thorncliffe Park Drive Assistant Deputy Minister Apt. 712 Ministry of Municipal Affairs Toronto, Ontario 777 Bay Street, 14th Floor M4H 1J4 Toronto, Ontario M5G '2E5 Mr. Harvey Thompson R.R. # 1 Mr. John Grieve Newtonville, Ontario Environment Canada LOA 1J0 Conservation and Protection Ontario Region James and Marley Wright 25 St. Clair Ave. E. , 7th Floor 136 MacPherson Avenue Toronto, Ontario Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2 M5R 1E8 Mr. Normunds Berzins, Chairman./ Mr. Ben Kortekaas Committee o f C l a r k e Concerned Citizens of Clarke Constituents R.R. # 1 P.O. Box 20028 Orono, Ontario Newcastle, Ontario LOB 1M0 L1B 1M3 Mrs. Dorothy Simon Mr. John Veldhuis 73 Garrard Road Chairman Whitby, Ontario Port Granby - Newcastle L1N 3K4 Environment Committee R.R. # 1 Mr. Hamish St. Rose Newtonville, Ontario 60 Gorsey Square LOA 1JO Scarborough, Ontario M1B 1A7 Mrs. Helen MacDonald R.R. # 1 Ms. Gina Brannon Newtonville, Ontario Lyons Goodman LOA 1JO Barristers & Solicitors 20th Floor Mrs. S. M. Vandermale 130 Adelaide Street West Vandermale Greenhouses Toronto, Ontario 3095 Morgan's Road M5H 3P5 R.R. # 8 Newcastle, Ontario Mr. Bob Reed L1B 1L9 Box 135 Newtonville, Ontario Mrs. J.A. Metcalfe LOA 1J0 R.R. # 3 Newcastle, Ontario LOA 1H0 F t � (� REPORT NO. : PD-25-92 PAGE 47 Mrs. Martha Farrow R.R. # 1 Newtonville, Ontario LOA 1J0 Mrs. Judy Lynn R.R. # 1 Newtonville, Ontario LOA 1J0 Mrs. Terry MacKenzie Box 165 Newtonville, Ontario LOA 1J0 Mr. Norman Berson R.R. # 1 Orono, Ontario LOA 1J0 Mr. Tom Kind R.R. # 1 Newtonville, Ontario LOA 1J0 Mr. Scott Lamont TransCanada Pipelines P.O. Box 1000 Station 'M' Calgary, Alberta UP 4K5 Mr. Walter Watt Property Administrator Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc. 55 Bloor Street West Suite 1212 Toronto, Ontario M4W 3H3 L • � i ►iii+.••��•i�i•.ti7 ilk nl t\ � •;4r A• ,}": DIME Al!C YY..•:'y:•�y •I.K' y!C a. V•,•• p� �' \_` \,� ,,\,,r,/ �rZ J` SEDIMENTATON 4 � 4 � ,r6•� R ! d'.'� <rz� �.•<� w- .r .�fGrrxxT \','1- •t`,` �i\—n-'`�-� _ r� f��-,.. .fir �L ry.�� •�G�'i0•'�'{.eC•i'..�.ftPi`i.- •�C`��Y���{�r�te <i lti��, �L' :.. 1�.�1 �`,. \t��'i.-� c T tit -•� � ;`�yi�'>L- 'C ` •fs•2', `"''.oc ��f��t��`rr�"i�E_ -`�-.�'" Ls.'!i_`1�I ,= ���''�r / �V-•�.' v t •� y`�_r v .� 7•`•!y�� EAChGm1`• B, LAG:• -,a \;a .o "qtr �_ •t 'ice` :°a t-. f��' �`���::•� `r �t, .,1 r•- •:y,2 .�� . " - � �1�!`%tL-ice��r=-/ ' �\� t:'" " .,G _`Y�-°�/. � �' l./J�7 .l!'� �4�'+ _i-' .. �+r�L' - '\,a •C• d,t:�.:,r-•'t/'.!' tLrr s� \`1 , I /\_` t``� r- -`i oY,c =,i-' t'�` _ rte, ..j.£u• '� - ��i�'�'\;,�T 1--i-�`/_ _ _ _` i I:,.i: lao Jj 1`\/ ,.-,, � \1 S"` `-i*x_� ...��,a{_ v�:r tt•y'`" ¢`'� �,k�>.4c ;.5`'.. I CLOSED LANDFILL KIV ' / \/t _t.' ' �'t�`j1%��,�. �<u�,�'�>4. . (,;. �"'F''"i'•"L:{,;�Lrr_. i'fv5: II i\,�- t/_. 1-ttr��i_�. 4�� c,�bct� c{.,.�"2,•/'iptf?l�i��= -' sca« �- I {{{ 1 r_t.��`?\, t \�� tFt s. c� :��cr•_ -; �,L , G.-• c. �:f!.•��:`1✓�a'vC•1- ..% 37:4Ngpq � �1LJ /\''i� '!'`I-`� .' ^;�•'�`cM..cc�;iC}.F'i, s. ti wq••,fio, c.�.C�•i{v- _.�4EC� 10 ERATING LANDFILL-16 1 - � TRANS_ � �`'t/� `/`/�`r�1�1'�,�-`•_ ��- �s«�.Lty " ��=HE/QN ` ��`� I �ru\Sa. _ �[a:i_�i� �`\, .:., fit" •. � r�l �R q/�t•� P/PE</NE � I �`t.,J!` ` 1_r-\.,`� ` „'.�r;r- � JL S -. tt., • ' ~:•':::::::::•:. LEGEND I BORROW AREA ® BUILDING ___ � PROPERTY BOUNDARY L_ EXISTING LANDFILL (APPROX.) BORROW AREA Attachment No. 2 --M.H. LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM ------ EXTENT OF WASTE CELL 9 Existing Laidlaw Landfill Site APPROX. LOCATION OF SITE ROADS r FLOOD PLAIN Pj —"acf APPROX. CONTOUR=METRES (A-MS.L) FILL and CONSTRUCTION LIMIT Attachment fro. 3 i. v rr r. g r Lu 1' l Q J fV r i ., V E NOISS30N00 3 NOISS30N00 x —��z .._; �W — ------------- f0 81 GVON IVN01038 t... W A CL CL av _ oa — U - 21i I --- -------,-----I' W W Ot/O8 N013'idVIS CIC� 1 U 10, I 1 PROPERTY BOUNDARY \q5 / I M I� ► 1 A�wN i CREEK OFFICE EXISTING RAPID INFILTRARON --' `- \� SIN NO. I AI NTENANCE/ ` \ SHOP RAPID INFI\TRATION ; _ I�, �.- !•,, I II ( BASIN NO. 0 / � `✓i/ ♦� ' /�1♦rte %\—/ / i -Z. PIPELINE . EASEMENT - � w DNS_ NORTHER N 1 LEGEND y INTER_ pROVI CL > :.'._T!3 gNSCg �..... :... ( PIPELINE----\ `. ? . ..�........PIP ELINE - EXISTING CONTOUR 30m EASEMENT /� EASEIy�IVT' �• �' _.195- PROPOSED CONTOUR 84 ENT PROPOSED INFILL AREA P* Attachment No, 4 Z Proposed Final Contours, Laidlaw Landfill. Infill Project PIPELINE INE ASE ° ENT .p 200 190 APPROVED ELEVATION 183m 18 0 170 ��1'�Jj�mil l`\i\//\lam/ it�j'��i`i�`t�l/ 160 APPROXIMATE ORIGINAL GRADE 140 SCALE HORIZONTAL - 1:2000 VERTICAL -1: 1000 rt !y S �D 3 Z 0 C 1: PROPOSED LEACHATE CROOKED PUMPING STATION CREEK H„r«` EXISTING LANDFILL SITE 115 PROPOSED MAJOR EXPANSION �t Q a 17 oc z 18 0 1- c ui •^ J 2 NEWCASTLE HIGHWAY No.2 NEWTONVILLE °a 0 HIGHWAY 401 f 401 z CD w METC ST. CONCESSION ROAD 1 > GRAHAM CREEK r+ WATER POLLUTION 0 CONTROL PLANT PROPERTY OWNED BY LAIDLAW t ivasimmo...lm PROPOSED LEACHATE FORCEMAIN ROUTE Lake OntoriO G ATTACHMENT NO. 7 SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL REPORTS SUBMITTED BY LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS Development, Operations and Closure Report This Report provides an overview of the Infill proposal and related works, such as the installation of an upgraded leachate collection system around the existing waste mounds and within the Infill area. The Report indicates that the groundwater in the area should not be "significantly impacted" by the Infill operation. The Report outlines a proposed program to monitor both the operation of site facilities and the surrounding environment. Various contingency actions are proposed to mitigate any operational problems or impacts on the environment identified through the monitoring program. The leachate collection system and maintenance of the final cover on the waste mound, as well as environmental monitoring, will continue after site closure. In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act, Laidlaw has indicated it will commit to a financial assurance package that the landfill site will be properly maintained and monitored for a period of 25 years after closure. Hydrogeology The reports state that the existing landfill is approved as a natural attenuation site, and that the leachate collection system and the Rapid Infiltration Basins are effective in collecting and treating the leachate prior to discharge to Graham Creek. That portion of the leachate which directly reaches Graham Creek is naturally attenuated by groundwater flow-through prior to discharge. The testing of water from Graham Creek indicates that the leachate has no measurable impact on Graham Creek. A prepared base and collector system are proposed to intercept and inhibit the migration of leachate below the Infill area. 2 560 Transportation Impact Assessment The Transportation Impact Report states that all roadways and intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at the existing satisfactory levels of service. Minor repairs are needed to the pavement surface and base/sub-base layers on the 4th Concession between Highway 35/115 and Morgan's Road. It is further indicated that between 35 and 53 trucks (70 to 106 two-way truck trips) per day to the site are anticipated if the Infill Proposal is approved. This would represent a marginal increase in truck traffic over the maximum volume possible under the existing Certificate of Approval. As well, up to 17 trucks (34 truck trips) per day may be needed to transport leachate off-site during peak run-off periods (spring and fall) . The Report further indicates that no significant safety concerns exist with respect to school bus routings or existing land uses along the waste haulage routes. The roads anticipated to be used by vehicles hauling waste are not heavily populated, with the exception of Highway 2 and Regional Road 18 through Newtonville (which is expected to carry a small proportion of site traffic) and the 4th Concession Road from Highway 35/115 to Morgan's Road (37 houses) . As well, no roads were anticipated to have a significant growth in background traffic. Government Consultation Report This Report provides a brief overview of the meetings between Laidlaw and the Ministry of the Environment, the Region of Durham, and the Town of Newcastle in the period from December 15, 1988 to September 9 , 1989 . Visual Impact Assessment and End Use Planning The purpose of this Report is two-fold: to identify the extent of visual change from the Infill project and the potential visual intrusion to nearby residents; and to develop measures to harmonize the landfill with the surrounding landscapes, during operation and B6 l 3 after closure. screen planting in various locations is suggested to visually integrate the landfill in the long term and screen or disguise operations in the short term. It is noted that the ultimate use of the landfill will need to comply with local official plan designations. Noise Impact Assessment Noise impacts will occur as the result of both on-site activities (preparation of the Infill area and site operations) and off-site activities (truck traffic along haul routes) . Temporary earth berms to the northwest, north and east of the site are suggested to mitigate noise impacts related to on-site activities. The Report states that the net increment in the noise impact on the majority of the residences along the haul routes would be minimal. Dust Impact Analysis The Report indicated that, under low wind speed conditions, infill activities would be the dominant dust source, while for high wind conditions, the greatest dust impact is due to wind erosion. Dust levels from the existing landfill and proposed infill operations are projected to be within the 24 hour provincial standard, although under certain extreme meteorological conditions, short term dust levels could be high. These dust levels would be comparable to the dust generated during agricultural tilling operations. Recommended mitigative measures include the construction of wind breaks, revegetation of exposed areas, and regular watering of on-site roads. Public Consultation Report This Report provides an overview of the public consultation activities undertaken by Laidlaw for the Infill proposal. Laidlaw circulated two newsletters and held two public open houses. The Report includes copies of letters received from the public, as well as a summary of public comments and Laidlaw's responses to same. 4 X62 Social Analysis Report The Report uses the impact associated with the existing licensed capacity of the landfill site as the base condition for assessing the impacts related to the Infill proposal. The Report indicates that little change in the disruption of daily activities and the use and enjoyment of property is anticipated over that which is associated with the current licensed capacity of the existing operation. The Report further notes that nearby residents could initially notice an increase in such effects as noise and dust, because of the voluntary fluctuation in weekly capacity undertaken by Laidlaw since December 1988 to ensure the continued operation of the site until the approvals process for the infill has been completed. ATTACHMENT NO. 8 PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS LAIDLAW INFILL PROPOSAL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. David Scott Committee of Clarke Constituents 1. letter to Ministry of the Environment (March 14 , 1989) requesting that the Infill Proposal be made subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, and indicating that the Infill proposal must be viewed in the context of the Expansion Proposal; requested the Committee be accorded Intervenor status 2 . letter to the Provincial Minister of the Environment (April 20, 1989) requesting that the proposed relocation of the pipelines be subject to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act 3 . letter to the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (June 12 , 1989) requesting the formation of an Environmental Assessment Review Panel in regards to the proposed pipeline relocation 4 . letter to the Provincial Minister of the Environment (July 31, 1989) expressing concern with the decision to exempt the Infill from the Environmental Assessment Act, thereby dealing with it separately from the Expansion Proposal 5. letter to Laidlaw's consultant (July 31, 1989) expressing concern with the proposed relocation of the pipelines 6. letter to Ministry of the Environment (September 21, 1989) alleging that Laidlaw had exceeded the approved contours for their existing landfill operation, and requesting the Ministry to investigate 2 D - 4 7 . letter to the Region of Durham (October 10, 1989) stating that Laidlaw's proposal to construct a leachate forcemain is an admission that the site is unsuitable for the natural attenuation of the leachate due to its hydrological complexity 8. letter to the Region of Durham (October 27 , 1989) noting that the existing landfill operation has never undergone a full environmental assessment, and forwarding criteria used by the Victoria County Waste Management Technical Advisory Committee 9. letter to the Town (December 5, 1989) reviewing his meeting with the Town on October 16, 1989 and re-emphasizing his opposition to the Infill proposal 10. letter to the Provincial Minister of the Environment (January 301 1990) noting that the Laidlaw site is located in the Ganaraska headwaters and indicating support for the recommendations of the Report of the Ontario Environmental Assessment and Advisory Committee on the Ganaraska Headwaters 11. letter to Premier David Peterson (March 15, 1990) advising him of the history of the Laidlaw site and his Committee's opposition to further expansions of landfilling operations, and objecting to the Province's apparent expediting of its review of the Infill Proposal 12 . letter to the Provincial Minister of the Environment (August 24, 1990) requesting the Ministry to investigate the licensed capacity of the existing landfill operation, to close the site until the matter had been resolved and to reconsider their decision to exempt the Infill proposal from the Environmental Assessment Act 13 . letter to Laidlaw (April 15, 1991) advising that the Committee 3 would like to participate in the quarterly monitoring program at the site 14 . letter to the Provincial Minister of the Environment (May 21, 1991) , in reference to John Bray's letter to the Environmental Assessment Board indicating no objection to the scheduling of the Consolidated Hearing, and reiterating their request that the Infill Proposal be made subject to the Environmental Assessment Act 15. letter to the Provincial Minister of the Environment (August 16, 1991) regarding the effective date of the Ministry's Policy on Interim Expansions, and advising of proposed diversion of Graham Creek Mrs. Helen MacDonald 1. letter to TransCanada Pipeline (February 20, 1989) expressing concern with the proposal for the relocated pipeline easement to cross other pipelines, the proposed alignment of the pipeline, and its proximity to the Laidlaw Expansion site 2 . letter to the Provincial Minister of the Environment (February 21, 1989) expressing concerns regarding the safety of the proposed pipeline relocation, and the need for an environmental assessment 3 . letter to Laidlaw (July 19 , 1989) expressing concern with their openness with the community and their level of preparation for the Public Meeting 4 . letter to the Ministry of the Environment (September 21, 1989) alleging that the contours at the Laidlaw site exceed those approved, and requesting the Ministry to investigate 4 566 5. letter to the Region of Durham (October 11, 1989) expressing concern with the Region's consideration of the Laidlaw site through its Waste Management Master Plan Process and objecting to the proposed leachate forcemain 6. letter to the National Energy Board (May 4 , 1990) indicating that the Board should undertake a full review of Laidlaw's plans, and that their decision regarding the relocation of the pipelines should be held in abeyance pending a decision on Laidlaw's Infill and Expansion proposals Mr. Ben Kortekaas Concerned Citizens of Clarke 1. letter to TransCanada Pipeline (February 10, 1989) objecting to the proposed relocation of pipelines in an environmentally sensitive area to permit additional landfilling on the Laidlaw site James and Marley Wright 1. letter to the Ministry of the Environment (April 28, 1989) expressing concern with the impact of the existing and proposed landfill operation, and requesting that the Infill Proposal be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act Ms. Dorothy Simon 1. letter to the Town (June 21, 1989) expressing concern with the impact of toxins from the landfill site on surrounding agricultural operations Mr. Glenn Stapleton 1. letter to the Town (October 4 , 1989) objecting to the proposed relocation of the pipelines, the placement of additional waste 5 6 in an environmentally sensitive area, and the proposed leachate forcemain Mrs. J.A. Metcalfe 1. letter to the Region of Durham (September 26, 1989) indicating that the Laidlaw site is environmentally suitable for a landfill site, and objecting to the proposed leachate forcemain Mrs. S.M. Vandermale 1. letter to the Region of Durham (October 10, 1989) objecting to the relocation of the pipelines to permit additional landfilling operations, and the aesthetic and safety aspects of the existing operation Mr. John Veldhuis, Port Granby - Newcastle Environment Committee 1. letter to the Region of Durham (October 12 , 1989) indicating support for a full environmental assessment of all waste sites and public control of waste management planning, and objecting to the proposed leachate forcemain Mr. Paul T. Hasoulas 1. letter to the Town dated December 20, 1991 expressing opposition to the proposed rezoning 6 i TIDE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE Memorandum JAN Z9 3 29 PH 192 To: Patti Barrie, Town Clerk From: Janice Szwarz, Senior Planner, Strategic Planning Date: 20 January 1992 Subject: Interested Parties - Report PD-25-92 (Laidlaw Infill) and Report PD-31-92 (Laidlaw Leachate Forcemain) Please make the following changes to the List of Interested Parties for the following reports: Report PD-25-92 1. Contact person at TransCanada Pipelines is changed to: Mr. Fraser Mowat 2. Please add: Mr. Paul T. Hasoulas 55 Limevale Crescent Scarborough, Ontario. M1 E 2K5 Report PD-25-92 and Report PD-31-92 1. Suite # for McDermott & Associates: please change from #406 to #704. 2. Please add the following name: Mr. John Chipman Fasken Campbell Godfrey - Barristers and Solicitors Toronto Dominion Bank Tower P.O. Box 20 Toronto-Dominion Centre Toronto, Ontario. M5K 1N6 Thank you for your attention to this matter. GsL- Janice. JAS*df