Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-157-91 M THE CORPORATION OF THE`COWS! OF NEWCASTLE DN:LAIDLAW.STS REPORT t->C)9. O P Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File# DMA- p5 V. 29.044 Date: Monday, July 8, 1991 Res. # Report#: PD-157-91 File #: OPA 89-39/D; DEV 89-44 By-Law# Subject: LAIDLAW INFILL PROPOSAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 89-39/D REZONING APPLICATION DEV 89-44 PT. LOTS 11 & 12, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TWP. OF CLARKE Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-157-91 be received for information; 2 . THAT Mr. J. Bray, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Environment, Mr. J. Curran, Hearing Registrar for the Environmental Assessment Board and Mr. B. Ridell, Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. David Scott of the Committee of Clarke Constituents and the interested parties indicated in this report and any delegation be forwarded a copy of this Report and be advised of Council's decision. 1 . PURPOSE 1. 1 The purpose of this report is to advise Committee and Council of the status of the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications with respect to the Laidlaw Infill Proposal. 2 . MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT COMMENTS 2 . 1 In January 1991, Laidlaw submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and the Town, a three volume Addendum to the 'Hydrogeology Report' on the Infill Proposal. In February 1991, Laidlaw also submitted a formal response to the Ministry of the Environment's comments of December 4, 1990 . 2 . 2 The Ministry provided their comments to Laidlaw on the Hydrogeology Addendum Report by letter dated May 28, 1991 (Attachment No. 1) . The Ministry requested Laidlaw to provide significant additional information on site hydrogeology and recommended that Laidlaw address these concerns prior to the Consolidated Hearing. RAPER @ RECYCLE BUS U VRIMCD W!ReevQED PAPER REPORT NO. : PD-157-91 PAGE 2 2 . 3 Ministry Staff have advised Town Staff that they have three key concerns with respect to site hydrogeology on which Laidlaw is being requested to provide additional information, as follows: the impact of leachate on Graham Creek during low flow conditions a better characterization of leachate through the drilling of test holes at strategic locations a definitive determination that groundwater contamination is not occurring north of Graham Creek by taking chemical samples from test holes north of the Creek. 3 . SCHEDULING OF THE CONSOLIDATED HEARING 3 . 1 By letter dated January 9, 1991 to Laidlaw's planning consultant (Attachment No. 2) , Mr. Brian Riddell, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, advised that the Ministry would not be in a position to refer Laidlaw's proposed Official Plan Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board until such time as they are advised by the Ministry of the Environment that the Part V application may proceed to the Environmental Assessment Board and they are in receipt of comments from the Town and Region. 3 .2 By letter dated April 24, 1991, Mr. John Bray, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Environment, advised the Environmental Assessment Board that the Ministry was conducting its technical review of the documentation submitted by Laidlaw in respect of the Infill Proposal (Attachment No. 3) . Mr. Bray indicated that the review was anticipated to be completed by June 30, 1991, with the submission of formal comments to the Board in July 1991. Mr. Bray further indicated that he would have no objection to a date for a Consolidated Hearing being scheduled to commence as soon as possible after the formal submission of the Ministry's comments . 3. 3 As noted previously, the Ministry of the Environment has not as of yet released their final comments on the Infill Proposal. Ministry Staff have indicated that the timing of the release of their final comments is dependent upon Laidlaw's submission of the requested REPORT NO. : PD-157-91 PAGE 3 information and the Ministry's review of the same. Ministry staff cannot provide an indication of when their review will be complete. 4 . FINAL CLOSURE OF THE EXISTING LAIDLAW LANDFILL 4 . 1 Ministry Staff have advised Town Staff that Laidlaw is currently receiving approximately three tonnes of waste per month at the existing site. Laidlaw has indicated to Ministry Staff that, at this rate, they anticipate achieving the final contours and closing the existing site sometime after August. The Ministry has also advised Town Staff that, notwithstanding the closure of the site, they will continue to process the Infill Proposal as an Interim Expansion to the existing site. 5 . COMMENTS 5 . 1 Staff are concerned with Mr. Bray's letter to the Environmental Assessment Board indicating that a Consolidated Hearing can be scheduled as soon as the Ministry of the Environment releases its final technical comments on the Infill Proposal . It must be emphasized that the application for approval under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act is only one of the applications related to the Infill Proposal which would be considered at a Consolidated Hearing. Laidlaw has also requested that the following applications be considered at the Consolidated Hearing: the Rezoning Application pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act the Official Plan Amendment application pursuant to Section 22 of the Planning Act the application for consent under Section 144 (3) of the Regional Municipality of Durham Act. 5. 2 Each of these applications would have equal status before the Consolidated Hearing Board. In order to properly evaluate the applications pursuant to the Planning Act, the Town must be afforded the opportunity to review all agency comments . In 7 REPORT NO. : PD-157-91 PAGE 4 particular, the comments of the Ministry of the Environment are critical to the Town's assessment of the applications. In this regard, the consulting firm of Acres International has been retained by the Town to review a number of the technical documents in respect "of the Infill Proposal, including the Hydrogeology Report. The finalization of Acres ' review is dependent on the Ministry of the Environment releasing its final position on the Infill Proposal . 5 . 3 Laidlaw's consultant has indicated to Town Staff that, notwithstanding Laidlaw's request for a Consolidated Hearing, the application pursuant to Part V of the Environmental Protection Act may proceed on its own to a hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board. A separate hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board would then be required to deal with the applications for Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning. 5 .4 Staff also note that a second Public Meeting in regard to the Rezoning Application is required. The first Public Meeting, held on July 17, 1989, dealt with Laidlaw's original proposal for a seven year life span for the Infill Project. As well, the Staff Report recommended that a further Public Meeting be held at such time as all of the supporting technical documents had been submitted and reviewed. 5 .5 Council will be in recess during August. Should the Ministry of the Environment release its final comments during this period, it would be very difficult to schedule a Council meeting at which the Town's final position could be determined. The scheduling of the Consolidated Hearing must therefore have regard for the timetable of public agencies, as well as that of the proponent. REPORT NO. : PD-157-91 PAGE 5 6 . CONCLUSIONS 6 . 1 The Consolidated Hearing in respect of the Laidlaw Infill Proposal should not be scheduled until such time as the Town has the opportunity to fully review the final technical comments of the Ministry of the Environment on the application. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P. AChief Kotseff Director of Planning inistrative and Development JAS*DC*FW*df *Attach 3 July 1991 Attachments # 1 Ministry of the Environment comments on Hydrogeology Addendum Report # 2 Brian Riddell's letter of January 9/91 to Laidlaw's consultant # 3 John Bray's letter of April 24/91 to the Environmental Assessment Board Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: Mr John Bray Assistant Deputy Minister Ministry of the Environment 250 Davisville Avenue Toronto, Ontario M4S 1H2 Mr. J. Curran Hearings Registrar Environmental Assessment Board Box 2382 12th Floor, 2300 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M4P 1E4 Mr. Brian Riddell Assistant Deputy Minister Ministry of Municipal Affairs 777 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario MSG 2E5 REPORT NO. : PD-157-91 PAGE 6 Mr. David Scott Committee of Clarke Constituents Box 20028 Newcastle, Ontario L1B 1M3 Mr. Michael J. Pullen, P. Eng. Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. 3410 South Service Road P.O. Box 5057 Station 'A' Burlington, Ontario. L7R 3Y8 Ministry Ministere of the de ' Environment I'Environnement Attachment No. 1 Lntano t APPROVALS BRANCH 3rd Floor 250 Davisville Avenue 250,avenue Davisville Toronto,Ontario Toronto(Ontario) Tel. (416) 440-3544 WS1H2 WS1H2 Fax (416) 440-6973 May 28, 1991. Laidlaw Waste Systems Limited 3410 South Service Road Box 5057 Station "A" Burlington, Ont. utily � L7R 3Y8 _'' . K t � Y33 Attention: Mr. M.J. Pullen, P.Enq Dear Mr. Pullen: RE: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd. Application for Landfill Expansion (Infill) The document submitted entitled " Infill Project, Hydrogeology, Addendum Report Laidlaw Newcastle Landfill" dated January 17, 1991 and prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited has been reviewed by Ministry sta.ff. The attached comments raise concerns which Laidlaw should resolve prior to the Consolidated Hearing. These matters will be further discussed at the meeting scheduled for June 3rd, 9:30 a.m. at the Ministry's Central Region Office located at 7 Overlea Blvd. Yours truly, J. Andrijr-,- Supervisor j Industrial Approvals fp encl . cc: J. Merritt, MOE, Central Region C. Lundy, Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham p( P. Barrie, Clerk, Town of Newcastle D. Jardine, MMA, Plans Administration Branch D. Scott, Committee of Clarke Constituents ; 1. The landfill is considered to be a natural ,attenuation site, and only 26 - 45 % of the leachate is claimed to be captured by the leachate collection systems. That figure may even be less if we do not accept the 800 mg/L chloride figure as basis for the leachate strength. It could be that almost 80 % of the leachate may be seeping into the underlying formations but it is not known well enough what is happening with the contaminated groundwater. The limited historical data-seems to.suggest that contaminant at some key sampling points and at depth, is-increasing and at a number of places contamination is . already below the so called "impermeable" boundary between the upper lacustrine sands and the lower till (e.g. cross section B-B' and Figure 8 1,1 the 1989 Hydrogeology Report). 2. Significant flow-through is mentioned to be a possible factor to attenuate the leachate. While the groundwater flow is generally towards Graham Creek according to Figure 5 (1989 Addendum Report), the flow in the upper aquifer has a component almost to every direction. Certainly the flow-through argument is not elaborated sufficiently and no flow volumes have been estimated/delineated to see whether this supposition is possible. 3. The leachate collection systems were constructed to intercept groundwater flow towards Graham Creek, however, there were still a number of seeps observed in late April, 1991. This may be due to the very limited extent of the lower collection system which should be extended to both the east and west. cont'd... 2 4. A number of shallow bore holes would be still needed near Graham Creek on both sides to better delineate the groundwater flow and chemistry. On the north side only the deep piezometers have been samplers for chemistry. 5. The critical contaminants have not specifically been defined. The consultant tried to use a number of parameters to show maximum allowable concentrations based on the Reasonable Use Policy limits and also showed a general chloride plume map and in the response to MOE comments the predictive monitoring was also mentioned. 6. In order to be able to carry out a potential future groundwater quality impact assessment and meaningful predictive monitoring program, the critical contaminant(s) must be determined and the plume(s) must be delineated in three dimensions. 7. The potential impact assessment will also necessitate an estimate of when the field capacity of the existing fill areas and that of the proposed infill would be reached. As indicated earlier, contaminant concentrations are still increasing at a number of sampling points of which the piezometers to the west and the east are likely the most critical to establish the boundary impact to the. west and to further examine impact on Graham Creek. 8. For the future impact assessment, the leachate should also be better characterized. The presented leachate analysis reflect diluted leachate, thus a couple of test holes should be drilled at strategic locations to establish: a) true leachate concentrations, m b) mounding, and c) the present degree of field capacity. 9. There should be two impact assessments: one with the infill and one without any further landfilling. Then the extent and the risks of the potential additional impacts could be assessed and comparison can be made between the two options. 10. These impact assessments should of course also include the potentialiq, of water quality changes in Graham Creek due to the landfill. The worst case leachate flows and quality entering to Graham Creek under 7Q20 flow conditions should be evaluated and discussed. cont'd... 58 3 Some additional comments: 11. If reassessment of the site will be required, along the above listed considerations, the sampling results for the spring of 1991 should also be included. 12. The list of sampling points and parameters should be reviewed. The.list of parameters should include conductivity, hardness, ionic a balance, phenols, DOC, BOD, COD and BTX and the additional-sampling points: 81-3, 98-7, 80-4, 79-4, 52-7, 51-5 and some of the new wells. The frequency of sampling, however, could be reduced in some of the wells to once a year. 13. Table 8 lists high chloride domestic wells. No chloride value was given for well MB#17. 14. The calculations showing the effectiveness of the leachate collection system used a value based on 70 m'/day. However, later on in the text (page 37 of the 1991 Addendum Report) a range of 40-70 m'/day is mentioned. If the flow varies that much, the annual figure cannot be based on 70 m'/day. 15. In order to facilitate the assessment of the three dimensional extent of the plume(s), it would be useful to plot historical and present chloride and BTX values on the cross sections in the addendum report. 16. A more detailed discussion of the significance of the organic sampling results and that of the organic plume(s) should have been presented in the Addendum Report. Attachment No. 2 January 4, 1991 Mr. John D. McDermott, M.C.I.P. Principal planner McDermott & Associates Limited Pickering Corporate Centre 13015 Pickering Parkway suite 406 Pickering, Ontario UV 3P2 Dear Mr, McDermott: Having received your letter of November 91 1990, I would like to take this opportunity to update you on the position of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with respect to the request by Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. to refer a proposed official plan amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board. 1 recall, in previous correspondence you were advised that comments ware still outstanding. from the Ministry of the Environment, the Region of Durham and the Town of Newcastle. We have now received comments from the Approvals Branch of the Ministry of the Environment regarding Laidlaw's technical reports submitted in support of the Part V application made pursuant to the Environmental Protection Apt. In a letter to Mr. M.J. Pullen of Laidlaw Waste Systems Limited dated December 4, 1990, Mr. J. R. Bray, Director of the Approvals Branch of the Ministry of the Environment, concluded by recommending that the (Part V) "application not be forwarded to the Environmental Assessment Board until such time as the outstanding issues are satisfied" . On the basis of Mr. Bray's letter, it would appear there are a number of outstanding issues which must be satisfied if the Part V application is to be recommended for referral to the Environmental Assessmont Board. /2 1-24-91 2: _1FM 416 623 08:SO; Mr. John 2. Mgpermptt. M.C.I.P. AS a result, until such time as we are advised by the ministry of the Environment that the part V application may proceed to the Environmental Assessment Board and wo are in receipt of comments from the Town and Region, we will not be in a position to refer Laidlaw's proposed official plan amendment to the Ontario Municipal hoard. in closing, it is my understanding that both the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Municipal Board have been notified of your application for a consolidated hearing pursuant to the Consolidated Hearings Act. However, we have also been advised that the Consolidated Hearings Board will not be in a position to schedule a hearing at which the Part V application and the official plan amendment application may be considered until such time as these two matters are referred to the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Municipal Board respectively. If you would like to discuss this matter, please Gall my office so that we may arrange a meeting. Yours truly, � ca Brian D. Riddell Assistant Deputy Minister c.04 Mr. J. R. Bray, Ministry of the Environment. Victor Doyle/mf (PAB C & SW) seq. 80075 IN?STRY OF MUNICIPAL JAN U 1999 ASSIS,A,.. ucrJjY wii,viSTER 1 �� ti'VN PAL OPERATIONS Att,aOment No 3 Ministry Minist6re of the de Environment I'Environnement Ontario 3 °4:' 250 Davisville Avenue 250,avenue Davisville APPROVALS BRANCH Toronto,Ontario Toronto(Ontario) 3rd Floor WS 1H2 WS 1H2 Tel. (416) 440-3546 Fax (416) 440-6973 April 24 , 1991. Environmental Assessment Board Box 2382 12th Floor, 2300 Yonge St. Toronto, Ont. ,M4P 1E4 Attn. : Mr. J. Curren Hearings Registrar Dear Mr. Curren: Re: Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd. Provincial Certificate of Approval No. A 390305 Application for Interim Expansion I have received an application from Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd. for an amendment of its Provisional Certificate of Approval for the landfill located on Part of Lots 11 and 12, Concessions 2 and 3 in the Town of Newcastle. The proposed amendment would permit the use of the site for an additional two years while an Environmental Assessment is prepared for a longer term expansion. This proposed amendment has not been designated under the Environmental Assessment Act and may proceed to a public hearing under the Environmental Protection Act. The Ministry's technical review of the documentation submitted by Laidlaw is currently underway. Its completion date is anticipated to be June 30, 1991. A formal submission of documentation would then be forwarded to the Board in July, 1991. It is understood that a request for a hearing under the Consolidated Hearings Act has been submitted by Laidlaw. Due to the anticipated timing of the MOE review, we would have no objection to a hearing date being scheduled at this time to commence as soon as possible after the above mentioned formal submission. Yours truly, 3riginal Signed by f. R. Bray J. R. Bray, P.Eng. A.D.M. (Acting) Environmental Planning and Prevention Division cc: M. Pullen - Laidlaw B. Riddell - MMA J. Merritt - MOE,Central Region C. Lundy - Regional Municipality of Durham P. Barrie - Town of Newcastle D. Scott - Committee of Clarke Constituents av/ U-1 ION -----------