MEMORANDUM. Technical Review Waste Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) TRY Recycling, Oro Medonte, Ontario (Site)

Transcription

1 MEMORANDUM 651 Colby Drive, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2V 1C2 Telephone: (519) Fax: (519) TO: Chris Pidgeon, GSP Group REF. NO.: FROM: Fred Taylor/Ben Constable/lp/2 DATE: June 12, 2012 RE: Technical Review Waste Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) TRY Recycling, Oro Medonte, Ontario (Site) Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) has prepared this memorandum for GSP Group to provide technical review comments on the following Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Waste ECA application documents, which were provided to GSP Group by the MOE as part of Freedom of Information Application (FOIA) request: Environmental Compliance Approval Application (Golders & Associates [Golder], December 23, 2011) Traffic Impact Statement (Totten Sims Hubicki Associates [TSH], September 18, 2008) Consultation Summary Report (Golder, December 22, 2011) Design & Operations (D&O) Report (Golder, December 22, 2011) Engineer's Report (Golder, December 22, 2011) Hydrogeological Assessment Report (Golder, December 23, 2011) CRA's technical review of the Air Emissions ECA application Emission Summary & Dispersion Modeling Report (ESDM) and the Acoustic Assessment Report (AAR) is provided under separate cover. CRA's overall technical review comments and comments on each report are provided separately below. As requested, CRA only provided a general review of the Hydrogeological Assessment Report regarding consistency with the remaining reports and technical approach with respect to the Waste ECA application as a second consultant has been retained to provide review of that report. OVERALL TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS CRA's opinion is that the reports meet the minimum technical requirements to support an application for an MOE ECA for a waste transfer/processing facility. However, key items discussed in each of the sections below are subject to interpretation, uncertainty and negotiation with the MOE, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and the Township of Oro Medonte (Township) (e.g., Chief Fire Official) regarding adequacy and requirements to allow permits and approvals to be issued. The following four items are of particular note regarding permitting and approvals: The requirements to obtain withdrawal/amendment to the Township's aggregate Pit License No to allow the proposed use are not addressed in the ECA application.

2 Page 2 Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) Section 53 ECA application, including Stormwater Management (SWM) Plan is indicated as not being required (MOE preconsultation) but will be applied for later in 2012 (D&O report). Some evaluations and provisions for stormwater management are provided in the D&O report. There is no documentation of correspondence/consultation with LSRCA provided. It is likely that an OWRA Section 53 ECA application, including a Stormwater Management (SWM) Plan as well as LSRCA approval is needed. The SWP would provide a comprehensive stormwater quantity and quality characterization and appropriate management measures to prevent adverse impacts to stormwater discharges and ultimately groundwater. Inconsistency of waste types for Hydrogeological Assessment (Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste) versus the D&O Report (C&D waste plus other types); Hydrogeological Assessment states that primarily inert C&D materials will be received that will not appreciably leach into the ground; The types of wastes that will be received needs to be clarified, particularly in regard to potential impact to surface and groundwater quality. The Engineers Report also provides for receiving other materials within the Facility operating envelope but no indication of what types of materials is provided. The application should provide specific lists of the types of materials that will be received under the D&O report and within the operating envelope so these can be stipulated in the ECA and for operating compliance assessments. No provision for Financial Assurance is provided as required by the MOE for this type of facility. Significant Financial Assurance would normally be provided for Site Characterization/Remediation and waste transportation and off-site disposal for the maximum quantity of material to be stored at the Site (99,000 to 123,000 tonnes). The detailed technical review is provided below and is organized by ECA application document. ECA APPLICATION (GOLDER, DECEMBER 23, 2011) ECA Application states that operating hours are 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday to Saturday inclusive. D&O and Engineers report refer to potential operation outside of standard hours for operations and/or shipping; clarification is required so that permitted operating hours are clearly established. The Facility is described as a C&D recycling facility but the Engineers Report allows for the receipt of a variety of other wastes from domestic, industrial, commercial and institutional sources and the Hydrogeological Assessment Reports indicates additional materials will be received; clarification is required so that permitted waste types are clearly established. An Application for an ECA for Industrial Sewage Works under OWRA Section 53 is indicated as not required and also to be prepared at some future time. and there is no evaluation of need for pre-consultation with LSRCA regarding approval for stormwater discharges. The NAICS code used for the application is 5622 Waste Treatment and Disposal; Material Recovery Facilities would be more appropriate (as used in the Air Emission ECA ESDM report). The attachments included to support the ECA application generally meet the minimum standard for an ECA application. TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TSH, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008) February 2010 amendment referenced in D&O Report (Appendix B of D&O Report has not been included).

3 Page 3 Nine entering and nine exiting trips during the am and pm peak hours. Two to ten truckloads per day of processed materials to market or residual to landfill. 1,000 tonnes per day average receiving capacity will result in an average of 66 or more trucks entering to drop off waste at the Site and 25 or more trucks exiting to haul material away from the Site. Traffic volume and rates are generally consistent with expected volumes and rates for a 1,000-tonne-per-day recycling facility. High percentage of vehicles on 7 th line already from large gravel pit directly across from the Site. Generally should quantify existing traffic and evaluate impacts of increased traffic in a more quantifiable manner (e.g., traffic increases, frequency of road use, road condition etc.); it is likely that the February 2012 amendment provides this information. Recommendations for improved access to Site, room for queuing traffic etc. are reasonable. CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT (GOLDER, DECEMBER 22, 2011) Press releases/public information flyers have been made available and website set-up. November 2011 consultation with MOE District Office: Indicates that materials received will be inert C&D waste which is inconsistent with D&O Report. Importance of minimizing contact with water runoff via grading or other means not wholly reflected in D&O report (OWRA Section 53 application pending, including SWP). Township is undertaking pit license amendment. Indicated that no OWRA Section 53 ECA application is required. This is counter to the current ECA application/d&o report and is unusual for this type of facility. Stormwater management should be evaluated and provided as potential impacts to soil and groundwater quality should be evaluated and appropriately addressed. It is recorded that fire storage water will not be required for the site and that this will be addressed in the D&O report. This is not directly addressed in the D&O report as only a generic Emergency Response Plan has been included at this time. Notices sent to adjacent property owners are consistent with ECA application requirements. May 4, 2009 public meeting notice and summary has been provided but no details regarding the interested parties that attended, their comments, or the responses provided to comments. DESIGN & OPERATIONS (D&O) REPORT (GOLDER, DECEMBER 22, 2011) The D&O report generally meets the minimum technical requirements of a D&O Report to support an ECA for the proposed type of facility. A list of materials beyond C&D waste that may be accepted is provided (e.g., recyclable fill, brush and yard waste, Freon-containing equipment, tires, waste electronics, and other materials based on future recycling and stewardship programs). No provisions for determining that rubble, asphalt, and recyclable fill received will be verified as having no contaminants or clean are included. A process for identification and/or certification should be considered.

4 Page 4 It is indicated that an OWRA Section 53 ECA application will be submitted and will include a SWP. This is inconsistent with representation to MOE District Office consultation which indicates that no Section 53 approval will be required. Some stormwater evaluation and management measures are provided but it is not indicated that these meet Section 53 requirements. Minimal storm water quality impacts other than particulate would be anticipated if only C&D wastes are received; however it is proposed that additional non-c&d waste will be received and stormwater quality impacts would typically need to be quantified and evaluated to determine appropriate management measures. Potential for fuel oil/grease related impacts exists due to vehicular traffic and heavy equipment operations as well as some of the materials proposed to be managed on Site. Potential for fuel related impacts due to leaks/spills from the above ground fuel storage tank in parking lot area are not addressed. Some controls for fuel oil/grease should be considered. No provision for Financial Assurance is provided as required by the MOE for this type of facility. Significant Financial Assurance would normally be provided for Site Characterization/Remediation and waste transportation and off-site disposal for the maximum quantity of material to be stored at the Site (99,000 to 123,000 tonnes). Management of routine maintenance for onsite operational equipment is not addressed. Some management for storage of oil/grease should be considered. Spill prevention and management measures are proposed to be implemented in an Emergency Response Plan before the Site is operational. The spill prevention and management measures should consider the uncovered areas of the Site, particularly porous nature of the Site ground conditions and the potential impact on groundwater quality. Potential fires will be managed through the Emergency Response Plan which has not yet been prepared. Confirmation that firefighting water storage is not required has not been included. It appears that all stormwater collected from the Site is proposed to be discharged to a low lying area located within the southeast portion of the Site. Water quality impacts to surface water are anticipated due to the nature of the stored materials. It appears that the only surface water treatment proposed is via a few vegetated swales. Therefore, it is likely that groundwater will be impacted due to the highly permeable nature of the soils. As a minimum, some form of treatment for particulates would typically be appropriate. In addition, some consideration may be warranted for the dissolved fractions of the surface water discharges based on appropriate stormwater quantity and quality characterization. Dependent on LSRCA policies and review and aquifer and groundwater recharge conditions, receptors etc., additional requirements may be imposed by the LSRCA. There may be potential for fugitive dust emissions from vehicular movements and stockpiles. The operating elevation being below the surrounding ground level will assist in preventing fugitive dust from moving offsite but this issue could be addressed further. A Fugitive Dust Management Plan including dust monitoring and control practices should be considered. Storage of residual waste for up to 180 days appears excessive. Reducing the storage of residual waste could be considered to minimize potential odour risks and other environmental impacts, particularly putrescible waste. The Site Closure Plan is very brief. It is suggested that soil characterization and remediation, as required, and Financial Assurance, should be included as part of the Site Closure Plan. An annual report is not considered in the D&O report and will be an ECA requirement. Preparation of an annual report containing information on waste quantities, environmental problems, complaints, and spills for example is generally required.

5 Page 5 The complaints response Section would generally contain additional details. A formalized procedure for documenting complaints, corrective actions, and responses in a dedicated manner is usually provided. Figure 3 Conceptual Facility Layout Plan of the D&O report is unclear. Only 6.14 hectares of the Site are identified, the remaining area breakdown should be provided. The withdrawal/amendment to the Township's aggregate Pit License No is likely required. The time, effort, and requirements to obtain the withdrawal/amendment have not been reviewed. ENGINEER'S REPORT (GOLDER, DECEMBER 22, 2011) The Engineer's Report generally meets the minimum requirements for an ECA application of this type. Calculations supporting threshold daily processing limit (1,900 TPD) are appropriate. Calculations supporting storage capacity limits (99,000 and 123,000 tonnes) are appropriate. Regulations and by-laws described which govern changes to operating envelope are appropriate. Specific types and listing of potential changes within operating envelope are reasonable. Function of the site to receive, sort and process C&D waste D&O covers a much wider range of wastes. The discrepancies need to be resolved so an accurate characterization of received and managed wastes is provided for MOE approval and such that appropriate, corresponding environmental protection measures are provided. Oro-Medonte By-law Regulates hours of operation of Pits and Quarries has superseded By-law referenced in the Engineer's report. As recommended in the Engineer's Report it should be confirmed if this by-law will apply. This would restrict operation after 10 pm and before 6 am and all day on Sundays. The operating hours should be clearly stated so that they will be established in the ECA. The change or rescinding of the MNR quarry permit is expected to also be tied to the by-law applicability. HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT (GOLDER, DECEMBER 23, 2011) Mitigation measures for preventing adverse effects are generally described (e.g., paving and buildings) but no specific triggers are provided which will be used to determine if these measures are required, rather best management practices will be used. There is a lack of rationale for technical adequacy and lack of detailed contingency and mitigation plan to address groundwater impacts, if impacts occur. There is an inconsistency of waste types for the Hydrogeological Assessment (C&D waste) versus the D&O Report (C&D waste plus other types). The Hydrogeological Assessment states that primarily inert C&D materials will be received that will not appreciably leach into the ground, this should be clarified. The use of vehicle wheel wash baths is described under Construction activities of the Hydrogeological Assessment Report; this is not mentioned elsewhere in the documentation. CRA believes that the key items with respect to groundwater quality impacts are proper, consistent waste characterization and an appropriate Stormwater Management Plan (to be provided in pending Stormwater ECA application).