Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 29-06 CitJ¡ (J~ REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: PD 29-06 Date: April 18, 2006 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Everett Buntsma Director, Operations & Emergency Services Subject: City of Toronto Consideration of Pickering Sites as the Potential Location for a City of Toronto Composting Facility in its: Planning Study for an Expanded Public Source Separated Organics Processing System - Recommendations Regarding Sites and Technologies Recommendation: 1. That Council RECEIVE Report PD 29-06 regarding City of Toronto consideration of Pickering sites as the potential location of a City of Toronto composting facility; 2. That the City of Toronto be ADVISED that the City of Pickering is opposed to the consideration of the Brock West and the Brock North landfill sites within Pickering, and the Brock South and Beare Road landfill sites that abut Pickering, as potential sites for new City of Toronto facilities to process organic waste (Green Bin recycling) into compost and that these four sites be removed from consideration when Toronto City Council deals with the Works Committee report at the Council meeting of April 25 - 27,2006; 3. That City staff continue to be involved in monitoring the City of Toronto Source Separated Organics (SSO) Planning Study to better understand the proposal, to protect City of Pickering interests and to report back to Council on the matter; and, 4. That Report PD 29-06 be FORWARDED to the City of Toronto, Regional Municipality of Durham, Town of Ajax, Transport Canada, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Rouge Park Alliance, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Environment, and MPP Wayne Arthurs. Financial Implications: Not applicable. Executive Summary: Not applicable. Report PD 29-06 Date: April 18, 2006 Subject: City of Toronto Composting Facility Page 2 1.0 Backqround: The City of Toronto is conducting a planning study to determine appropriate technology and suitable site(s) for expanded compost processing facilities for Toronto's Green Bin materials. Potential sites of concern are the former Brock West and Brock North landfill sites within Pickering, and the former Brock South landfill in the Town of Ajax and former Beare Road landfill site in the City of Toronto, both abutting the Pickering boundary (see Attachments #1, #2 and #3, which show the locations and the surrounding context). Five other sites were also identified within Toronto. Pickering staff advised Toronto staff, in late February 2006, that: · waste management facilities would be considered industrial operations not permitted by current official plan and zoning provisions on the two Pickering landfill sites; · Pickering Airport Site Zone Regulations would apply to both sites; and, · Minister's Zoning Order #2 would apply to the Brock North site. Concerns were expressed about compatibility of such facilities with existing and designated residential development for Pickering sites and abutting sites. On March 7, 2006, the City of Toronto Works Committee approved a Toronto Staff Report which recommended consideration of a number of sites, including the two Pickering sites and the two abutting sites as potentially suitable sites for new composting facilities and to enter into discussions with the Town of Ajax, City of Pickering and the Region of Durham about possible use of any or all of the sites for such purpose (the Toronto Report and the Works Committee Decision are provided; see Attachments #4 and #5). The Works Committee recommendations will be considered by Toronto City Council at its April 25th to 2ih meeting. City of Toronto Works staff are prepared to make a presentation to Pickering Management Forum on May 1st. Toronto City staff are also preparing to distribute a flyer to advise nearby residents and businesses about this Toronto initiative and to receive comments. 2.0 Discussion: Staff is concerned that the City of Toronto is considering use of the closed waste disposal sites within and in proximity to Pickering for the processing of organic waste. It was understood that waste operations had ceased on all of the sites. On the Brock West site, for example, the City of Toronto agreed to "cease to receive or dispose of any waste" in 1996. At this time, detailed examination of past Council resolutions on similar matters and related legal agreements is underway and results will be forwarded to Council under separate cover. Report PD 29-06 Date: April 18, 2006 Subject: City of Toronto Composting Facility Page 3 The reason for concern is that the two Pickering sites and the two abutting sites are not suitable for waste management uses given the potential impacts on adjacent uses. When Toronto acquired the lands many years ago, they were in the countryside with significantly less potential impact on urban residents. Now, there are existing and proposed urban residential and recreational areas that abut the sites and the sites are no longer suitable for waste management operations. Staff is concerned that one or more waste processing facilities may have the following types of impacts in Pickering: · Operational impacts such as litter, increased truck traffic, noise and odour; · Impacts on existing and future communities in the South Urban, Central Pickering (particularly Seaton) and Rural areas (Hamlets of Brougham and Greenwood); · Impact on the Pickering Museum Village; · Bird hazards for a possible future Federal airport; and · Environmental impacts both within and beyond the lands designated in the Greenbelt Plan. Staff recommend that Pickering Council advise the City of Toronto that Pickering is not willing to be a 'host' community for such facilities, nor are the abutting sites appropriate. All four sites should be removed from consideration by Toronto City Council. As set out in Recommendation #2, Pickering City Council should advise Toronto City Council that Pickering is opposed to the consideration of the two sites within Pickering and the two sites that abut Pickering as potential sites for new City of Toronto facilities to process organic waste into compost and request that City of Toronto Council remove the four sites from further consideration at its meeting commencing April 25, 2006 which will deal with the Works Committee report. Staff also notes that unless the City of Toronto removes the four sites from consideration, significant staff resources and expenditures may be required to evaluate the impacts and to protect Pickering's interest respecting this initiative of the City of Toronto. Until the four sites are removed from the potential site list, it is recommended that staff continue to monitor the progress of the Toronto planning study for composting facilities and seek Council direction as appropriate. Staff will remain involved with the study to better understand the impacts, to ensure that Pickering interests are protected, and to be able to report back to Council as appropriate. Report PO 29-06 Date: April 18, 2006 Subject: City of Toronto Composting Facility Page 4 Attachments: 1. Map 1: Potential Toronto Composting Sites 2. Map 2: Beare Road Site 3. Map 3: Surrounding Context of Potential Toronto Composting Sites 4. Toronto Staff Report: "Planning Study for an Expanded Public SSO (Source Separated Organics) Processing System - Recommendations Regarding Sites and Technologies" 5. Excerpts from Toronto City Works Committee Decision Document, March 7, 2006 Prepared By: Approved I Endorsed By: k:eJJ~ Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner II 1 l /'i/)/J, t' Ji ¡ I:X ' 1'. ".,' ~.;~._ Ri ard Holborn! P. Eng. f Qivision Head, Municipal Property &. Engineering SG:ld Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Operations & Emergency Services Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering City Clerk City Solicitor Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council /// .'- ,.- " " Þ.TT ACHMEI\I1 (I ~ / TO REPORT # PO /'}.1-oCc MaE 1: Potential Toronto Comcostina Sites L:IJ \ : ~rj ¡ z ::¡ '" o iii ( , IJROUfl. \... ~," ì h-lìb.'D~~~¡X - iii \ ~-I X,)<~ ~ '-""'" ~ )( Y,« I ~ ~ ~Nöi#~~~ x ~ ~ ::¡ x; ~Ñ!fS^ ~ ~~ .~'l!5 \ ~-2\1 z _ I r X'x'9 ",'i::i:" n~ ¡ ~ \ 0 ~~ ~ l., ~ ~;¿< ~ & - BRÓCK~ 15 \ '" SOUTH X2S.. N ) ---,·x N ~ V ^ '" '[) ····..T~~ · J /~~-\J T ,~ / ) "'''NTON fY" v----' ~~\oo\"< } '\.# ~Iv . \\.. .<'D"D CD " I 4'! h O~R\O R 7 L-) ---~~ ~ \ I ~ ~( ~,\::)1Î ./ ~ X< ~~f.fJt:·~ R An ~CON~V ROA o +- ~ lh 0:~~~~~.J I X ~ ~~~I æ ~ ~o~~~~11 ;il~! ~ l.---- U, ~~\~ '- )1- ~ ¡' ~ ;i( LL ~ /_.~ j r ~ 'Iðl ______ ... \ ID H ~ l"""f 0 l' City of Pickering Planning & Development Department !lõ~o ~ourc..: PN RUR i.. ~~~;.~~;¿.~,:-~.~~. '~~~.:~~.:t~I·~r:~~~r·R.~:~:d~t·N~e~·';~od,; :~ts~n:~n of al.lrvoy. - v ~ '-'" ( re '----- :!: '" Z ::¡ '" o iii '" Z ::¡ '" o iii '" Z ::¡ ~ 1} " U o o ~ f HIGHWA~) A07 / ; ~ ( \ l v J_~~ \, I ~ I~ §/ ~ II " N > "\ ON'vss,n.. ATTACHMENT 1._ ;;} TO REPORT 1/ PDe 3C\ -0<0 MaD 2: Beare Road Site 0) ð 0: -~~~ ~,-J lJ! o !:; .. ~ ¡ Q L I ¡ /I jJ ~ Ú ~, I ~ ~ ~ L, -.......-- _.__ _" 11: "\ IV V / ) ) '" "NTON ) ð r \ . _/ """R< ~o)j ~ '\ '\ ~ .J i ~ ~_ ð 1. ~ ~ ,\ TH'FlD \ 0: U ONdlSSI^" An ~ \ '" (/ [j ð T- ~ /ð ~ II o:~no: ~ . ~\ I ) f~-U ~~~ t:::: \) HYDRD < ~~ ::s: / :k-; -' ~:' ;:¡ ~. ~, -'\ ' -A' ~ ~!'..~ - c a ~. \ c.P.R.) . ~ ~=LI ~ It .' ~. ~,.~ :; ~~~ ~O'Q ~ ù[ xxxx )L~ ~ (. /" /'" -a - S\.f ><x x>V<~ -I" "' E ~ \ , ~ ~ .~_., ( i ~ '" ,~ ~ ~~ ~ T ) c:: ~ r '1 r. [ ~ 'I q !?':.~ .c _ _ - .,.., 'J- ~ filii = J-U:.II 4J U g'" ¡-, ~ \ .-. a- a -:\ """'T .n 11:.:&. .. - \ ] ~ u .. ~ ~"~ :\ \::!.: .~. :!". ~.~ ~ "; -:... ~ =- ...-' c:-II r ~ ~ a-\"";' ~ =.~ cv ,C:~ - pr ~ w¡ ~ Ft1.A~~-h ';: \\ -A 10. I~ ~ ~ ] ~ - ,\ '" ~~J ~'& :!: :¡ þ -:;-' ~ ;:;...r .- - ..::v.. ~ ;..- '\ .......... nlu!1 ~ "¡~~~'(I 1= F-....-·· CON. DnAn ~ _m~ HYDRO BEARE ROAD LANDS City of Pickering Planning & Development Department l' ata Source.: é- Teronat Enterpr¡... Inc. ond a. .up~li."', All ";vhta R...,.ved. Not a pion of BUrv.y. æ¡ 200~ MPAC and It. .uDDliat.. AIr r¡Dhta R...rved. Not 0 Dlo" of Survav. PN-N/A Ma 3: Surroundin ATTACHMENT I REPORT' PD Context for Potential Toronto Com .J TO æ -ole> Sites REGION ~ ~ ~ z @É) ,.. UI IÞ ... ~ = ROAD IGHTH NC 25 ~ ~ 0 0: '" ~ u @ 0 0: ., ONCESSI N ROAQ CONCE SION ROAD ~ NTH ~ 0 @ ð 0: GE IÞ HICHWAY . .- . I .. z o ~ .. FOURT C N TAUNTON o ð 0: THIR AJAX URBAN LANDS ð a.: STREET '" u o 0: ., l' 1MS MAP NMS PRDDLIC£O IW 1HC CITY OF PICKERING PWiNING ~ DE1Ð.OPIICNT D£RARTllCNr. INFQRtI4T1ON . SfJII1IORT ~ MWII. 10. 2OØ6. þTTf¡("'unn.li I.f.TO -,' .·..,..;or'IJl·¡i_ii" 1t.,.,..,"""'="...,,..,,.-,....,..,,.."""~. :·:~E~·~Cfp·r ~j ¡)D"",,,,_~.ª'3 '-C!> (. " ."~,,",.",",,=c,'" ~ TORONTO STAFF REPORT March 3, 2006 To: SSG Sub-Committee of Works Committee From: General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services Subject: Planning Study for an Expanded Public SSG Processing System Recommendations Regarding Sites and Technologies Purpose: The purpose of this report is to report the progress-to-date of the above study and obtain Council approval of the recommendations regarding system capacity, products, technologies and potentially suitable sites. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: There are no direct financial implications resulting from this report. Recommendations: It is recommended that: System Capacity 1. the expanded publicly owned and/or operated (public) SSG processing system be sized to receive and process a total input of 110,000 tonnes-per-year of SSG material plus any required amendment materials on a two-shift basis as described in this report; Products 2. the expanded public SSG processing system be designed to produce: a. high quality compost material, which meets the provincial regulatory requirements for unrestricted use and has no visible plastic or glass, as its primary finished product; and b. if the system includes anaerobic digestion, either electricity or heat or natural gas suitable for use in City vehicles, as its secondary products; and þTT þ,CHMENT H__LTo i9 Of(' ,..,.,"'"'",......... '\ I.,("'':¡~ r 1/ PI"¡ ¡;, -, ~ I,,., ,..'1 c ~ ... . ..._ . - 2 - 3. the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services and the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation be authorized and directed to develop a plan for the utilization of some or all of the compost products and soil amendment products derived from the City's SSO within the City's Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division; 4. the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services and the Director, Fleet Services be authorized and directed to investigate the feasibility of using natural gas derived from the anaerobic digestion ofthe City's SSO in City vehicles; Technologies 5. the following technologies be short-listed for further consideration in the study: a. mechanical bag openers and rotary drums for bag opening; b. wet pre-processing for physical contaminant removal; c. anaerobic digestion; d. in-vessel horizontal bays or basins with mechanical agitation and forced aeration, and, if sufficient buffer is available, enclosed static piles with forced aeration and periodic mechanical agitation for active phase aerobic composting; and e. indoor or outdoor aerobic curing and storage; 6. in addition to the 110,000 tonnes per year of processing capacity described in recommendation 1, the expanded public SSO processing system may include a 5,000 to 10,000 tonne-per-year demonstration scale ATAD (autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion) facility; Sites 7. the following potentially suitable City-owned sites, along with any potentially suitable sites identified pursuant to recommendation 10, be considered in the next phase of the study: a. the Disco, Dufferin and Ingram transfer station sites; b. the closed Beare Road, Morningside, Brock North, Brock South and Brock West landfill sites; and c. 3301 Markham Road; 8. the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized and directed to conduct public consultation with the municipalities, government agencies and boards and ATTACHMENT#,~~~TO REPORi # PD ~-O~~~.~._. - 3 - the public living in the local communities in the vicinity of the sites under consideration to obtain feedback on potential impacts and mitigation measures; 9. the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized to make presentations to the respective Councils of Town of Ajax, the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham to describe the study if so requested by the municipalities; 10. prior to developing the system options to be evaluated in the next phase of the study, the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized and directed to: a. develop conceptual designs for expanded pre-processing and anaerobic digestion if feasible at the Dufferin, Disco and Ingram transfer station sites and for pre- processing, anaerobic digestion and active phase composting if feasible at the closed Beare Road and Morningside landfill sites; b. enter into discussions with any or all of the Town of Ajax, the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham with respect to the possible development and use of any or all of the sites within their respective municipalities, as described in this report or otherwise as deemed appropriate by the General Manager, and report back to the SSO sub-committee with the results of any such discussions; c. enter into discussions with the General Managers of other City Divisions with respect to the possible use of sites currently under the control of other City Divisions and report directly to the April 2006 meeting of Council with the results of any such discussions. Background: At its special meeting held on October 25, 2005, the Works Committee approved the recommendations contained in the joint report from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services and the Treasurer to the SSO Sub-Committee, dated October 19,2005 and entitled "Request for Proposals 9121-05-7304, Planning Study for an Expanded Public Source Separated Organic Material (SSO) Processing System". In so doing, the Works Committee authorized the Acting General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services to negotiate and enter into an agreement with Mac Viro Consultants Inc. to provide professional technical services to carry out a planning study for an expanded public SSO processing system. The October 2005 report indicated that an interim report would be brought to the March 2006 meeting of the SSO sub-committee to: . confirm the capacity of the system, taking into consideration the total amount of SSO to be generated, less the 70,000 awarded to the private sector through RFP 9155-03-5280 plus a reasonable contingency; -,. if"., ....,l_t.... "u,o, [J,FPorn Ii PD."'_,~"d.g;Qk~~"."...,,'" -4- · identify suitable products for the system, specify appropriate product quality standards for the products, produce a plan for marketing the products to external users and identify opportunities to use the products in ongoing City operations; · identify potentially suitable City-owned sites, including Dufferin, at which system facilities might be located, by developing and applying technical screening criteria to a long list of closed landfill sites, solid waste transfer stations and other available city sites (the report indicated that for non City-owned sites to be considered, the study schedule would have to be extended); · recommend suitable, proven mechanical and biological processing technologies for the main processing system. Comments: MacViro was retained as authorized by the Works Committee and commenced work on the study in November 2005. The study is being carried out by MacViro under the direction of staff from the Solid Waste Management Services Division (SWMS). This interim report describes the study team's key findings and conclusions to date and makes a number of recommendations regarding capacity, products, technologies and sites. The infonnation is presented in three sections, as follows: · System Goals and Obiectives .. presents the study team's conclusions and recommendations with respect to system capacity and products and describes, in general terms, the planning and environmental approval requirements; · Sites - describes the site screening process and the results of the evaluation of City-owned sites; · Technologies - describes the functional requirements of the system components and recommends suitable, proven technologies for the main processing train and also recommends further investigation into a possible small scale demonstration facility using AT AD (autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion) technology. System Goals and Obiectives Capacity The Council direction is to size the expanded public system so it can process all of the City's SSO, less the 70,000 tonnes awarded through RFP 9155-03-5280, plus a reasonable contingency. Some components of the system will also require amendment materials such as wood chips or leaf and yard waste in order to function properly. The year 2020 is considered a reasonable planning horizon for this type of system taking into consideration the state of the art, future expandability, and the useful life of the equipment. '1 L/ " é1i~' - 5 - Considering existing and planned SSO policies and programs and taking the City's growth projections into account, it is expected that the city will collect between 144,000 and 180,000 tonnes per year by 2020. For facilities of this nature, it is customary to size the facility utilizing two operating shifts per day with the third shift being reserved for cleaning, maintenance and contingency. Although it is important to build in enough contingency capacity to handle periodic downtime at other facilities, it is also important not to over build the system in case the actual SSO generation rate is at the low end of the expected range. Sizing the system to process 110,000 tonnes-per-year of SSO on a two shift basis satisfies the sizing requirements of 180,000 minus 70,000 tonnes-per-year and provides a reasonable contingency on the third shift. If the actual SSO generation rate is lower than 180,000 tonnes per year, options include cutting back production at the public facility or cutting the private sector contracts back to their 70% put-or-pay amounts, or a combination of the two. It is therefore recommended that individual components be sized to accommoqate the 110,000 tonnes of SSO feedstock plus any required amendment materials on a two shift basis. Some individual system components, which can not be quickly or easily changed to a three-shift operation, will be designed with adequate contingency capacity. The recommended capacity of each component will be reported in final study report. Products and Product Marketing Strategy One of, if not the most, significant risk in the development of new SSO processing systems is the possibility that the processing system may not produce a marketable product. The importance of minimizing this risk was recognized at the outset of the Study and was reflected in the SSO processing system goals, which indicated that the SSO processing system must produce an unrestricted use product for which stable markets exist and that the SSO processing system must be capable of consistently satisfying the regulatory and market quality requirements for the intended products. Separate product marketing assessments were completed by the Consultant, who examined markets external to the City, and SWMS staff in cooperation with staff from Parks, Forestry & Recreation Division (PF&R), who examined marketing opportunities within the City's operations. It was concluded that, while it may be technically possible to produce a variety of products from municipal SSO, including different qualities of compost and liquid and solid fertilizers, at this time in Ontario a stable market exists only for high quality compost. Therefore the goal of producing an unrestricted use product for which a stable market exists can only be satisfied by producing a high quality compost product. High quality compost is that which: . satisfies the quality requirements specified in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's Interim Guidelines for the Production and Use of Aerobic Compost (Updated 2004), and is thereby deemed to be suitable for unrestricted use (i.e. exempt from provincial waste management regulations); and which, 'I ¡ ¡. "".". ?r;<"}."",,7,,,.:'1':"c-~":7;:""'''''!) '..~ 1f PI} .~"J.9-:{iQ~=~~ -6- . satisfies the additional, and typically more stringent, quality requirements specific to the intended end use. It is therefore recommended that the system be designed to produce the highest quality compost product possible given the feedstock. PF&R currently consumes a significant quantity of compost annually, either purchased from local producers or obtained from SWMS (compost from the City's leaf and yard material). Other City Divisions and Agencies including Homes for the Aged, Toronto Fire Services, Transportation Services, Toronto District School Board and Toronto' Catholic District School Board, also use compost either purchased directly or as part of contracted grounds-keeping services. The ability to use compost produced by the SSG processing system in ongoing City operations, particularly in P,F&R's horticultural and turf management operations, would greatly reduce the risk of product marketing failure. PF&R staff assessed the opportunities and requirements for the use of compost derived from SSO within their ongoing programs and reported that: · PF&R operations could potentially consume more high quality compost than the expanded public SSG processing system could produce, provided that the compost satisfies specific end use requirements; · different grades of compost are required for specific uses, where grades are distinguished by specific physical (e.g. particle size) and chemical (e.g. nutrient content) characteristics; · quality requirements applicable to all grades of compost product are that it cannot contain any glass shards or other sharp foreign inert materials and that it must be virtually free of other visible contaminants and that it must be stable and odour free. Staff from PF&R and SWMS further considered the requirements of a program to utilize compost from the SSO processing system in ongoing City operations and concluded that: · the SSO processing system must be capable of producing the different grades of compost required for specific end uses and must provide a minimum of 6 months product storage; · local depots for temporary compost storage and distribution must be established; · dedicated trucks will be required seasonally to transport compost from the SSO processing facility(ies) to the local depots and from the local depots to the specific application sites; · specialized and dedicated equipment is required for some compost applications; · staff need to be trained in compost utilization; and, · dedicated management and ongoing intra-Divisional co-operation will be required to ensure the success of the program. Lf a9.~t() -7- It is recommended that the SWMS and PF&R develop a plan for the utilization of some or all of the compost products derived from the City's SSO within PF&R. Experience with the launches of the City's Green Bin program has taught that some citizens have concerns about the safety of compost derived from the SSO. Proactive communications efforts must therefore be made to demonstrate the safety of the compost product and to gain acceptance of its use in public areas. Approval Requirements One of the goals of the study is to recommend a system that can be approved within a reasonable time without the need for an Environmental Assessment. Two categories of major approvals for new and expanded SSO processing facilities are planning approvals and environmental approvals. Additional technical approvals, which are generally required at the time of facility construction, are not discussed in this report. Planning Approvals The Planning Act requires municipalities to develop Official Plans which establish general policies for land use and designate the types of uses intended for specific areas or sites. If SSO processing is not compatible with the designated uses identified in the Official Plan, it will be necessary to apply for an Official Plan amendment. Official plan amendments, if required, would add considerable time to the development time line and uncertainty to the approval process. The Planning Act also provides for municipal zoning bylaws which specify permitted uses and site specific development requirements (e.g. set-back distances, etc.). If SSO processing is not a permitted use within the current zoning designation, it will be necessary to apply to for rezoning, or for an exception to the current zoning bylaw, to permit the intended use. If the site is within an area controlled by the province's Greenbelt Plan, or an area controlled by the federal Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulations, as some of the city-owned sites are, additional restrictions and requirements will apply. Environmental Approvals SSO processing facilities of the scale considered would not trigger an Environmental Assessment under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). However, the Minister of the Environment could, in response to concerns about the impacts of the proposed facility, order that an Environmental Assessment be undertaken. SSO processing facilities would require approval as waste processing sites under Part V, section 27 of the provincial Environmental Protection Act (EP A). Although public hearings are not mandatory for the type and scale of facilities being contemplated, the Director of the Ministry of the Environment's Approvals Branch has the discretionary power under section 32 of the EPA to ¿¡. ¿;q -Cv - 8 - hold a public hearing prior to deciding whether or not to issue an approval for a waste processing site. SSO processing facilities would also require approval under section 9 of the EP A for any air emissions, such as those from an odour control system. If an SSO processing facility is proposed at a landfill that has received waste within the past 25 years, approval under section 46 of the EP A would also be required. If the SSO processing facility discharges effluent from an on-site sewage treatment system into a receiving water body (because the site is not serviced by a municipal sewage system), approval of the sewage works would be required under section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). A class environmental assessment would also be required for the new sewage works. All approvals granted by the provincial Ministry of the Environment must be posted on the Ministry's environmental registry for a minimum of 30 days as required by the province's Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). If an SSO processing facility is built in the vicinity of a cold water fishery, it would have to be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of federal Fisheries Act officials, that deleterious materials would not be deposited in the fishery and that the fishery would not be negatively affected. Consultation The above planning and environmental legislation includes specific requirements for public consultation with potentially affected parties including the local municipality, government agencies and boards and the public living in the vicinity of the site. The Minister of the Environment and the Director of the Approvals Branch will also consider the level of public consultation in deciding whether or not to order an Environmental Assessment or hold a public hearing. In order to obtain feedback from potentially affected parties and to demonstrate that the City followed a fair and open site process, it is recommended that public consultation begin as soon as practicable. Sites New capacity to satisfy the City's outstanding long-term SSO processing requirement will require the construction of one or more new facilities, as an addition to or replacement for the Dufferin organic processing facility. The Study work plan includes the identification of sites potentially suitable for an SSG processing facility. At this stage of the Study work plan, potential suitability was taken to mean that the site has sufficient usable area (allowing for reasonable set backs from neighbouring land uses), reasonable truck access and is not zoned for residential land use. 4......':1.... .."'. ;:1 F'ft." ..æ:.9Þ - 9 - A subsequent task of the Study work plan, the comparative evaluation of alternative processing system configurations, will assess how other site specific factors affect the relative suitability of a particular site for the each type and scale of SSO processing facility considered. Site specific factors to be considered will include the configuration of the available area, the nature and proximity of adjacent land uses and the status of existing site services and subsurface conditions. The Study was first to consider properties currently owned by the City. In the event that potentially suitable City-owned sites do not provide for an acceptable SSO processing system configuration, the scope of the siting task was to be enlarged to include non City-owned sites. Three categories of City-owned sites were considered: solid waste transfer stations; closed landfills and landfill properties; and, other City-owned properties. Solid Waste Transfer Stations The City's seven operating transfer stations were considered: Disco Road, Dufferin Waste Management Facility, Ingram Drive and adjacent property, Commissioners Street, Bermondsey, Scarborough and Victoria Park. Also considered were two closed transfer stations: Symes Road and Wellington Road. Closed Landfills and Landfill Properties The following five City-owned closed landfills and landfill properties were considered: · the Beare Rd. landfill site which is a closed landfill within the municipal boundary of the City; · the Morningside landfill site which is a closed landfill site within the municipal boundary of the City; · the Brock West landfill site which is a closed landfill located in the City of Pickering (Region of Durham); · the Brock North landfill site which is a former landfill site located in the City of Pickering from which the waste has been removed; and, · the Brock South landfill property which is located in the Town of Ajax (Region of Durham) and which was intended to be, but never used as, a landfill. Other City-owned Properties Facilities and Real Estate Division conducted a review of the City's property portfolio to identify potential sites that could be suitable for this program. The initial list included properties identified as surplus to operational requirements and at least 2 hectares in SIze. Facilities and Real Estate Division identified three other City-owned properties for consideration: · 3301 Markham Road (east of Markham Road, south ofSteeles Ave.); iI.... if ii PD ..",~,:.a.?' - 10- . a site identified as 0 Conlins Road (east of Mornings ide Ave., north of Ellesmere Ave.); and, . a site identified as the former Glendale Sewage Treatment Plant (at the end of Westgate Boulevard, southeast of Sheppard Ave. and Bathurst St. Properties currently used by other City Divisions have not been considered thus far in the Study. TEDCO has substantial land holdings currently zoned for industrial uses, specifically in the Toronto Portlands and also in south Etobicoke. SWMS staff met with TEDCO to assess whether or not any of their currently held properties could be considered. A new SSO processing facility was considered to be incompatible with the land use plans for the TEDCO properties. Therefore, TEDCO properties have not been considered thus far in the Study. Screening Criteria Screening criteria were developed by the Consultant and SWMS staff and applied to each of the sites under consideration to determine whether or not it is potentially suitable for a SSO processing facility. The criteria used to identify potentially suitable sites are presented in the following Table. ;l_Jl,,_._',;i,i J9.~Ç;!e .... - 11 - Table: Criteria to Identify Potentially Suitable Sites # I Sites are excluded for further consideration if: Land Use · some or all of the available site area is zoned Residential; or · there are Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) or Areas of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSIs) located within the available site area. #2 Sites are excluded for further consideration if: Site Accessibility · the only access to the site is via a local road through a residential area. Note: if current site access is through a residential area but an acceptable entrance can be constructed to avoid access through residential areas, then the site may be considered. #3 Sites are excluded for further consideration if: Size and Configuration of Available Site Area · the available site area is insufficient for a mInImUm facility footprint PLUS appropriate setbacks from the property line based on the surrounding land uses. Note: The minimum facility footprint is 0.4 hectares with a minimum width of 40m. The minimum set-back requirements are: · 30 m from the footprint of the facility (buildings) to the property line of the site; · 100 m from footprint of the facility (buildings) to the boundary of any adjacent property that is zoned residential; and, · 100 m from the footprint of outdoor operations to the site's property line. The above screening criteria caused the following sites to be excluded from further consideration: · the Commissioners Street, Bennondsey, Scarborough, Victoria Park, Wellington Road and Symes Road transfer stations because they did not have adequate available area; · the property identified as the fonner Glendale Sewage Treatment Plant because it can only be accessed through a residential area; and, · the property identified as 0 Conlins Road because it is currently zoned for residential use. Potentially Suitable Properties II de¡ ~60 - 12 - The following properties are identified as potentially suitable locations for a new SSO processing facility: · Disco Road, Dufferin and Ingram Drive solid waste transfer stations; · Morningside Ave., Beare Rd., Brock West, Brock North and Brock South closed landfill sites and landfill properties; and, · 3301 Markham Rd. A brief description of each potentially suitable site, including comment on the unique requirements of municipal and provincial environmental approvals for that site, is provided Attachment 2 to this report. No properties located within the City have sufficient space to store the compost product while it is being prepared for market and over the winter months when compost utilization is not possible. The Brock North and South properties, located in the Region of Durham, do have sufficient area for product storage. However, as described in Attachment 2, use of either of the sites for SSO processing would require amendments to the Regional and local municipal Official Plans and municipal rezoning, or zoning amendments. Even with the cooperation of the local and regional governments, it would take two years or longer to amend the Official Plans, including the time required to complete the necessary technical studies (e.g. predicting impacts on the local environment, traffic and air and water quality etc.). Facing opposition, the Official Plan amendment process would take much longer and success is not guaranteed. It is recommended that SWMS staff hold discussions with the Region of Durham, the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax regarding use of the sites located in their municipalities. It is also recommended that SWMS staff hold discussions with other City Divisions regarding possible use of their sites. Technologies A series of sequential processing operations are required to convert SSO into a marketable compost product: pre-processing, processing and product finishing. Technology options exist for the pre-processing, processing and product finishing operations. The Study work plan included review of available processing technologies and identification of suitable proven technologies by generic technology classification. The Consultant and City Staff developed criteria to identify suitable proven technologies for the pre-processing, processing and product finishing operations. Included were criteria to assess the suitability and effectiveness of each generic technology category, and criteria to assess the commercial status of each generic technology category, i.e. whether or not the technology is proven in the marketplace. Suitable and proven technology categories, and sub-categories, for the pre-processmg and processing operations are listed in the following Table. 'I ;;x:¡ ih - 13- Table: Suitable and Proven Techno 02Y Cate2ones, and Sub-cate2ones Operation Suitable and Proven Technology Categories and Sub-categories Pre- Suitable and proven technologies are: Processing . Mechanical bag-openers; · Rotary drums; and, · Wet pre-processing systems. Satisfying the functional requirements of the pre-processing operation will require a combination of these technologies. Suitable and proven technologies are: · Anaerobic Digestion, all sub-categories; · Aerobic Compo sting - In-vessel Horizontal Bays and In-vessel Horizontal Basin Reactors; and where adequate buffer area exists, · Enclosed Aerobic Static Piles with periodic agitation. Because Anaerobic Digestion produces digestate and not compost, the digestate must be further processed by Aerobic Composting. The short list of technologies/approaches includes: · Enclosed Aerobic Static Piles; and, · Open Windrows and Static Piles. Open Windrows and Static Piles can only be used where the buffer area is sufficient to control odours. Processing Product Finishing AT AD technology is excluded from the above Table because no facilities exist that satisfy all of the commercialization status criteria. Despite the relatively underdeveloped commercialization of the AT AD technology, the process theory suggests that it has the potential to offer significant advantages as a replacement for Aerobic Composting in SSO processing operations. AT AD systems require less land area than Aerobic Composting systems of similar capacity because of the shorter retention times and because AT AD is a liquid phase process which enables the reactors to have a greater vertical dimension. A TAD can achieve better pathogen reduction than Aerobic Compo sting because of the higher sustained temperatures in the reactor; typically sustained at greater than 55°C throughout the process. Also, A TAD produces a smaller amount of more stable material than Aerobic Compo sting because A TAD does not require the addition of amendment material and also because a larger portion of the volatile material is degraded. However, the AT AD process theory has not been proven on SSO (after wet phase pre-processing operations) and the regulatory status and end market suitability of the stabilized, pathogen free organic material resulting from AT AD processing of SSO are unknown. Pilot scale trials of AT AD processing of pre-processed SSO could usefully contribute to a fuller understanding of the potential of this technology. Ii ¿lq-(:t'J - 14 - The process to identify suitable proven processing technologies is presented in greater detail in Attachment 1 to this report. Conclusions: This report describes the findings to-date of the SSO Study Team, makes recommendations regarding system capacity, products, suitable proven technologies and potentially suitable City- owned sites and recommends next steps in the SSO Planning Study. Contact: B. Van Opstal Senior Engineer - Operational Planning Solid Waste Management Services Phone: 416-397-0143 Fax: 416-392-4754 E-mail: bvanops@toronto.ca Richard Butts General Manager Solid Waste Management Services (p:/2006/swms/mar/0 1 OWC _ SSO.Sub-Committee.doc) Attachment I: Processing Technologies ti é)e¡ Pf-; A series of sequential processing operations are required to convert SSO into a marketable compost product: pre-processing, processing and product finishing. Technology options exist for the pre-processing, processing and product finishing operations. The Study work plan included review of available processing technologies and identification of suitable proven technologies by generic technology classification. The Study Team identified vendors supplying technologies for: · pre-processing operations including bag opening, material separation and SIze reduction; · processing operations including aerobic compo sting, anaerobic digestion and autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion (ATAD); and, · product finishing operations including curing, material separation and blending. For processing operations, each major technology category ( i.e. aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion and AT AD) is comprised of distinctly different sub-categories, as presented in Table AI-I. Table AI-I: Major Categories and Sub-categories of Processing Technologies Major An engineered and controlled process, conducted in the presence of atmospheric oxygen, whereby naturally .. . occurnng mIcroorgamsms convert putrescible organic material into a stable substance called compost. Aerobic compo sting IS a solid phase process. Anaerobic Digestion Sub-cate or In-vessel horizontal bays with mechanical a itation In-vessel horizontal basin reactors with mechanical a itation Modular tunnels aka "biocells" In-vessel vertical reactors Enclosed static pile with periodic a itation Open windrows and static piles Solids within reactor content the Distinct Features Material moves horizontally through open-top channels and is agitated by specialized turning equipment. Forced aeration is rovided. Material moves horizontally through large basin (i.e. without internal channel divisions), and is agitated by specialized turning equipment. Forced aeration is rovided. Modular, static, fully enclosed reactor vessels. Forced aeration is rovided. Material moves vertically downward through the reactor vessel. Material is not a itated. Aeration is forced or assive. Modular, static process enclosed in a membrane reactor (film plastic or similar cover material). Forced aeration is rovided. No reactor vessel. Material is turned (windrow) or static (static pile). Aeration is forced or assive. Wet systems operate less than 15% solid material. Dry systems operate at more than 20% solid material. Attachment 1 - 1 4 dq -t::b Attachment I: Processing Technologies Major Processing Technolo2V Cate20rv An engineered and controlled process, conducted in the absence of atmospheric oxygen, whereby naturally .. . occurnng mIcroorgamsms convert putrescible orgamc material into combustible biogas and a partially stabilized material called digestate. Anaerobic digestion can be a liquid or solid phase process. Autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion (ATAD) An engineered and controlled process, conducted in the presence of atmospheric oxygen, whereby naturally .. . occurnng mIcroorgamsms convert putrescible orgamc material into a stable, pathogen free substance. AT AD is a liquid phase process. Sub-cate2orv Process stages Process temperature regime Process flow Mixing regime Aeration and mixing systems Process flow Distinct Features Single stage; all biological reactions occur in one vessel. Two-stage systems separate the biological process into two stages and provide a separate reactor for each. Mesophilic processes operate at 35°C to 45°C. Thermophilic processes operate at 45°C to 60°C. Material can flow through the reactor continuously or in batches. Material in the reactor can be completely mixed or static (i.e. no mixing) or can flow through the reactor as a plug. A variety of technologies exist to aerate and mix the reactor vessel. General sub- categories include: recirculation - venturi systems and naturally aspirated systems. Material can flow through the reactor in batch (i.e. all in - all out) or semi-batch modes (i.e. some in - some out) modes. The Consultant and City staff drew on their knowledge of North American facilities and also visited municipal organic materials processing facilities in Europe. The trip itinerary and facility selection were intended to encompass the widest possible variety of pre- processing and processing technologies. Key observations included: · SSG can be successfully processed by either aerobic composting or anaerobic digestion and these technologies can be used in combination; · only high quality compost could be reliably marketed; · low quality compost material could only be marketed where dedicated uses had been established; · facilities were challenged to produce a high quality compost product from SSG containing significant amounts of film plastic and contaminants, and of the processing Attachment 1 - 2 II ¿2q-oio Attachment 1: Processing Technologies challenges, removal of small shards of glass and other inert foreign material was the greatest; · plastic film and contaminant removal was most successful when applied at the pre- processing stage, and of the pre-processing technologies observed, wet systems (i.e. where the SSO is diluted and processed as a liquid) appeared to achieve better separation of small contaminants, e.g. glass shards, than did dry systems (i.e. where the SSO is processed as a solid); and, . that operator skill and commitment is key to successful operation. The Consultant and City Staff developed criteria to identify suitable proven technologies for the pre-processing, processing and product finishing operations. Included were criteria to assess the suitability and effectiveness of each generic technology category, and criteria to assess the commercial status of each generic technology category, i.e. whether or not the technology is proven in the marketplace. Each processing operation must fulfill key functions if the processing system is to produce a compost product suitable for unrestricted use and be capable of consistently satisfying the regulatory and market quality requirements for the intended product. Technology suitability criteria were derived from these functional objectives and are summarized in Table Al-2. Table Al-2: Technology Suitability Criteria Pre-processin2 Processin2 Product Finishin2 Must be enclosed for odour Must be enclosed for odour Must be enclosed except control control where sufficient buffer area is available Must open bags Must provide mIxmg and Must provide turning agitation Must not grind or shred film Must provide forced Must prevent pathogen plastic or contaminants to a aeration (aerobic reinoculation small particle size operations) Must achieve separation and Must enable control of key Must enable control of key removal of coarse film plastic process parameters process parameters and contaminants Must achieve separation and Must achieve pathogen Must achieve stability and removal of grit, glass shards reduction and prevent maturity requirements and other fine contaminants reinoculation Must size reduce the organic Must effectively reduce Must provide for material to the appropriate volatile solids, I.e. the screening, blending and a SIze for the biological material must be stabilized minimum of 6 months on- processing operation site product storage Attachment 1 - 3 If. .. ,;¿::.,- (:;f) Attachment 1: Processing Technologies Regarding the commercialization status; for the technology to be considered to be proven there must be at least one representative facility in North America or Europe using the technology and which has been operating at a minimum of 20,000 tonnes per year ofSSO material for at least 3 years. Suitable and proven technology categories, and sub-categories, for the pre-processing and processing operations are listed in Table Al-3. Table Al-3: Suitable and Proven Technology Categories, and Sub-categories o eration Pre- Processing Suitable and Proven Technolo Cate ories and Sub-cate ories Suitable and proven technologies are: · Mechanical bag-openers; · Rotary drums; and, · Wet pre-processing systems. Processing Satisfying the functional requirements of the pre-processing operation will re uire a combination of these technolo ies. Suitable and proven technologies are: · Anaerobic Digestion, all sub-categories; · Aerobic Composting - In-vessel Horizontal Bays and In-vessel Horizontal Basin Reactors; and where adequate buffer area exists, · Enclosed Aerobic Static Piles with periodic agitation. Product Finishing Because Anaerobic Digestion produces digestate and not compost, the di estate must be further rocessed b Aerobic Com ostin The short list of technologies/approaches includes: · Enclosed Aerobic Static Piles; and, · Open Windrows and Static Piles. Open Windrows and Static Piles can only be used where the buffer area is sufficient to control odours. ATAD technology is excluded from Table AI-3 because no facilities exist that satisfy all of the commercialization status criteria. A total of about 60 ATAD facilities were in operation worldwide in 2001, the largest of which processed wastewater sludge at the rate of about 5 dry tonnes per day (equivalent to approximately 5,000 tonnes of SSO per year). Larger facilities have been constructed in the last 5 years treating up to about 10 dry tonnes per day (equivalent to approximately 10,000 tonnes of SSO per year). Twenty- one full-scale ATAD facilities were operating in North America in 2001; fifteen in the U.S., six in Canada. These facilities processed wastewater sludge or liquid industrial organic waste. None of these facilities processed municipal SSO. Attachment 1 - 4 Lj dq-cb Attachment 1: Processing Technologies Despite the relatively underdeveloped commercialization of the AT AD technology, the process theory suggests that it has the potential to offer significant advantages as a replacement for Aerobic Compo sting in SSO processing operations. AT AD systems require less land area than Aerobic Composting systems of similar capacity because of the shorter retention times and because AT AD is a liquid phase process which enables the reactors to have a greater vertical dimension. AT AD can achieve better pathogen reduction than Aerobic Composting because of the higher sustained temperatures in the reactor; typically sustained at greater than 55°C throughout the process. Also, AT AD produces a smaller amount of more stable material than Aerobic Composting because A TAD does not require the addition of amendment material and also because a larger portion of the volatile material is degraded. However, the ATAD process theory has not been proven on SSO (after wet phase pre- processing operations) and key process parameters such as retention times and aeration requirements may differ from those of full-scale ATAD systems processing other materials. Also, the regulatory status and end market suitability of the stabilized, pathogen free organic material resulting from ATAD processing of SSO are unknown. Pilot scale trials of ATAD processing of pre-processed SSO and could usefully contribute to a fuller understanding of the potential of this technology. Attachment 1 - 5 Attachment 2: Sites 'i . c2CJ -dc.) This Attachment provides a brief description of each potentially suitable site, including comment on the unique requirements of municipal and provincial environmental approvals for that site. Disco Road Transfer Station Disco Road Transfer Station is located in the City of Toronto, north of Dixon Road and west ofHwy 27. Existing facilities include: transfer station, drop-off depots for electronics and HHW, a weigh scale building, outdoor transfer for leaf and yard waste and outdoor transfer trailer storage. A new bi-Ievel depot for public drop-off of recyclable materials is planned. A closed municipal waste landfill site underlies the transfer station building and most of the site. Disco Landfill closed in 1967. Based on estimated waste volume, approximately 500,000 tonnes of waste were landfilled. Planning Approvals Planning approval requirements for a new SSO processing facility would include a site plan approval and approval of minor variances under the existing zoning bylaws. Environmental Approvals Environmental approval requirements for a new SSO processing facility would include amending the existing EP A Part V waste site and EP A Section 9 air emissions approvals. Because the landfill has been closed for more than 25 years, approval under EP A Section 46 would not be required. Ingram Drive Transfer Station and Adjacent Property Ingram Road Transfer Station is located in the City of Toronto, near Keele Street and Eglinton Avenue. Ingram Road Transfer Station is currently in operation and is a transfer facility for waste, leaf and yard waste, computers, and HHW. There is bi-Ievel depot in the northeast comer of the site. Attachment 2 - 1 [1_._ LJ ... ... .)q ~('i) Attachment 2: Sites A recommendation to use the property adjacent to the Ingram transfer station for a new reuse facility and for site modifications to improve operational efficiencies and customer services at the transfer station is presented in a staff report entitled Solid Waste Requirements for Lands at the Ingram Transfer Station, submitted to the 7 March meeting of the Works Committee. Planning Approvals Planning approval requirements at the transfer station property for a new SSO processing facility would include a site plan approval and approval of minor variances under the existing zoning bylaws. The adjacent property was formerly used as a golf driving range. The zoning bylaw was amended in 1997, to permit the driving range and related commercial uses on the portion of the adjacent property fronting on Keele Street. The general zoning category for the property is Industrial M2. Amendment to the zoning bylaw, or a rezoning of the property, would be required for a new SSO processing facility. Environmental Approvals Environmental approval requirements for a new SSO processing facility would include amending the existing EP A Part V waste site and EP A Section 9 air emissions approvals. The amended waste site approval would apply to both the current transfer station site and to the adjacent property. Dufferin Waste Management Facility The Dufferin Waste Management Facility is located near the intersection of Dufferin Street and Finch Avenue and consists of two properties: 75 Vanley Crescent and 35 Vanley Crescent 75 Vanley Crescent has one structure, the former Dufferin Street Incinerator, currently used as a single-stream recyclable materials transfer station and also houses SWMS facilities and maintenance operations. 35 Vanley Crescent houses three structures and ancillary facilities. The structures are a solid waste transfer station, a material recovery facility (MRF), and an organics processing facility. Ancillary facilities include a weigh scale, outdoor material storage, trailer parking and a biofilter treating odours from the organics processing facility. There are plans to construct a personnel building on the south central part of the site. Attachment 2 - 2 '-/ ó)q -ct> Attachment 2: Sites Ash fill from the former Dufferin Street Incinerator (closed in 1982) underlies most of the site area not currently in use. The currently approved alignment for the Spadina subway extension diagonally bisects the site and makes a large portion of the site unavailable for construction of permanent structures. The TTC is currently undertaking an Environmental Assessment to select and approve a different alignment for the Spadina subway extension. A new alignment which avoids the Dufferin Waste Management Facility has been selected and it is expected that by the end of the year the Environmental Assessment will be submitted to the Minister of the Environment for approval. Once the Environmental Assessment of the new alignment is approved the TTC will release the development hold on the current right of way. Planning Approvals Planning approval requirements for a new SSO processing facility would include a site plan approval and approval of minor variances under the existing zoning bylaws. Environmental Approvals Environmental approval requirements for a new SSG processing facility would include amending the existing EP A Part V waste site and EP A Section 9 air emissions approvals. Beare Road Landfill Site Beare Road Landfill is located near Beare Road and Finch Avenue East and its eastern property line is on the municipal boundary with the City of Pickering. Approximately nine million tonnes of waste were landfilled between 1968 and 1983. There is a landfill gas collection and utilization system on the southwest comer of the site that began operations in 1996, and is currently operated by E.S. Fox Limited. The total site area is approximately 80.9 Ha, most of which is consumed by the landfill fill area and the landfill gas plant. The remaining area is largely occupied by the stormwater control ditch which is a narrow strip between the fill area and the property boundary. There is a wetlands creation project on the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) property on the west boundary of the landfill site. The TRCA is replanting the area with trees and establishing a trail system. Planning Approvals Attachment 2 - 3 t.j ;' d'l',Ç/p, Attachment 2: Sites The City of Toronto Official Plan designates the site as Other Open Space and the site is currently zoned as Natural Environment. Waste management is not a permitted use within the Official Plan designation or zoning. Amendment of the Official Plan and rezoning would be required. The site lies within the boundaries of the Rouge Park. The Rouge Park Management Plan (1994) identifies the Beare Road landfill site as a special management zone. In a special management zone, land use is detennined on a site-by-site basis through agreements between the park management entity and other agencies and private landowners. Environmental Approvals The site has an EP A Part V waste disposal site approval, originally issued in 1982 (A280401). The approval was amended in 1994, to pennit construction of the landfill gas plant. The landfill gas plant has an EP A Section 9 approval for air emissions. Environmental approval requirements for a new SSO processing facility would include amending the existing EP A Part V waste site and EP A Section 9 air emissions approvals. Because the landfill would have been closed for more than 25 years, approval under EP A Section 46 would not be required. Morningside Landfill Site and Adiacent Property Morningside Landfill and adjacent property are located at the southeast corner of Highway 401 and Morningside Road. The former landfill site and the City owned property adjacent to and north of the landfill site are being considered together. The landfill was closed in 1960. A passive landfill gas system was constructed on the east side of Morningside Road (to the west of the Morningside Landfill) in 1997. A passive landfill gas system was constructed immediately to the east of the Morningside Landfill in 2000, and 2001. The system also incorporates a shallow groundwater/leachate collector. There is a flat concrete pad to the northeast of the site that was previously used as a yard waste composting area. Transportation Division has a yard with a salt dome between the landfill and adjacent property. The total combined area of the landfill site and adjacent property is approximately 18.5 Ha, however the landfill occupies most ofthe site area. Attachment 2 - 4 1.1 ¿)g:(0~ Attachment 2: Sites . Planning Approvals The new City of Toronto Official Plan designates this site as a Mixed Use Area. The Morningside landfill site is currently zoned as Institutional which does not permit waste management activities. An amendment to the new Official Plan and rezoning would be required to use this site for SSO processing. Environmental Approvals The site does not currently have an EP A Part V waste site approval. A new SSO processing facility would require a new EP A Part V waste site approval and a new EP A Section 9 approval for atmospheric emissions. Because the landfill has been closed for more than 25 years, approval under EP A Section 46 would not be required. Brock North The Brock North landfill is located in the City of Pickering, just south of Highway 7 and east of Brock Road. The site is easily accessible from Concession 5 or a direct entrance could be established from Brock Road. The total site area is approximately 280 Ha. Between October 1978 and April 1979 approximately 120,000 tonnes of waste were landfilled on approximately 4.9 Ha in the northwest area of the property. Between December 1996, and March 1997, all of the waste was removed and relocated to the Brock West landfill site to prevent previously unforeseen water quality impacts. The site does not have water or sewer services. Planning Approvals SWMS staff met with planning staff from the City of Pickering but have not yet met with planning staff from the Region of Durham. The Region of Durham Official Plan designated this site as Major Open Space System. The City of Pickering's Official Plan designates this property as Open Space System - Natural Area. A portion of the property is zoned Q (Pit and Quarry) and the remainder is zoned A (Rural Agriculture). Waste management is not a permitted use within any of current land use designations. Attachment 2 - 5 '-I ólq~¢ìþ Attachment 2: Sites The property is also subject to the requirements of the Provincial Green Belt Plan. Regional and local municipal Official Plans must incorporate the requirements of the Green Belt Plan. Green Belt plan requirements relevant to the proposed use of this property are a prohibition of the extension of "lake based services" meaning water and sewage services into rural areas designated as Protected Countryside. At this property, the Green Belt Plan also requires protection of topographical features associated with the Lake Iroquois shoreline. This site is included in the area covered by a Provincial Minister's Order issued under the Planning Act in 1974. The Order restricts land use to agricultural and places corresponding restrictions on land development. The site is also included in the Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulation (Transport Canada) which restricts land uses that could potentially interfere with airport operations, including building height, electronic interference and bird nuisances. The property is located in the Duffins Creek watershed which is a designated coldwater fishery. A portion ofthe site is also within the jurisdiction of the TRCA. A 1970 agreement between Metropolitan Toronto and the Township of Pickering states that on completion of the refuse disposal sites (i.e. the Brock West, North and South sites), the property would be turned over to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for Recreational Purposes. The TRCA was not a party to the agreement and has not accepted ownership of the Properties. This issue remains unresolved. A 1978 agreement between the Regional Municipality of Durham, the Town of Pickering, the Town of Ajax and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto requires Durham, Pickering and Ajax to amend their Official Plans and zoning bylaws to permit the use of the Brock North, South and West sites for waste disposal. A 1996 settlement agreement between the Town of Pickering and Metropolitan Toronto requires that a restrictive covenant, registered against title, prohibiting the use of any part of the Brock North site for waste disposal. Environmental Approvals A portion of the property has an existing EP A Part V waste site approval, originally issued in 1977 (A390405). A new SSO processing facility would require a new EP A Part V approval or amendment to the existing approval. A new EP A Section 9 approval would be required for atmospheric emissions. Attachment 2 - 6 ,-/, ¡;¡q~~; '. Attachment 2: Sites Approval under EP A Section 46 may be required for any construction on the approved landfill area. An approval under Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act would be required if any discharge of SSO processing effluent or stormwater to Brougham Creek (a tributary of Duffins Creek) is proposed. Sewage works necessary to treat process effluent or stormwater to meet discharge requirements would require a Class EA for a new sewage works. In addition, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, through the Fisheries Act, prohibits discharge of deleterious substances into waters designated as coldwater fisheries. Discharge limits for the on-site sewage works would be subject to the provisions of the Fisheries Act. Brock South Landfill Property The Brock South Landfill is located in the Town of Ajax directly south of Brock North (Concession 5 separates the two former landfill sites). The site has not been used for waste disposal. The total site area is approximately 180 Ha. There is access to the site from Concession 5 or an entrance could be established directly from Brock Road. The site does not have water or sewer services. Planning Approvals SWMS staff met with planning staff from the Town of Ajax. Ajax staff have been authorized by their Council to hold discussions with the City regarding future use of the Brock South site. SWMS staff have not yet met with planning staff from the Region of Durham regarding this site. The Region of Durham Official Plan designated this site as Major Open Space System. The Town of Ajax's Official Plan designates this site as Major Open Space and has zoned the site as Permanent Countryside. Waste management is not a permitted use within any of current land use designations. The requirements of the Provincial Green Belt Plan apply to this site as they do to the Brock North Site. Also applicable to this site are the Pickering Airport Site Zoning Attachment 2 - 7 ¿l 'ÿ». ,..1.-'...... or-¡"·W Attachment 2: Sites Regulation, Duffins Creek watershed related issues and the 1970 and 1978 agreements between Metro Toronto and the Durham municipalities. Environmental Approvals A portion of the property has an existing EP A Part V waste site approval, originally issued in 1975 (A390404). A new SSO processing facility would require a new EPA Part V approval or amendment to the existing approval. A new EP A Section 9 approval would be required for atmospheric emissions. Because no waste was landfilled on the site, approval under EP A Section 46 would not be required. Approval requirements for the discharge of process effluent or stormwater to Brougham Creek are as for the Brock North site. Brock West Landfill Site The Brock West landfill is located in the City of Pickering, north of Finch Avenue and west of Brock Road. Between 1975 and 1996, approximately 18 million tonnes of waste were landfilled. Approximately 288,000 tonnes of this waste were fro.m Brock North Landfill, which was transferred between 1996 and 1997. Also, approximately 1.1 million tonnes of sewage sludge were disposed in the southeast part of the site between 1975 and 1991. A landfill gas collection and utilization system was installed in 1985, and is owned and operated by Eastern Power Developers. Planning Approvals SWMS staff met with planning staff from the City of Pickering but have not met with planning staff from the Region of Durham. The Region of Durham's Official Plan designates this site as an Employment Area. The City of Pickering's Official Plan designates this property as Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Area. The zoning bylaw was amended in 1974, to permit waste disposal. Further discussion with Durham and Pickering planning staff is required to determine whether or not Official Plan amendments and rezoning, or zoning amendments, are required. Attachment 2 - 8 ¿¡. d'!-Öb Attachment 2: Sites Environmental Approvals A portion of the property has an existing EP A Part V waste site approval, originally issued in 1980 (A390402). A new SSO processing facility would require a new EP A Part V approval or amendment to the existing approval. A new EP A Section 9 approval would be required for atmospheric emissions. Approval under EP A Section 46 would be required for construction on the approved landfill area. 3301 Markham Road (Part 3 only) The 3301 Markam Road site is located southeast of the intersection of Markham Road and Steeles Avenue. The property consists of four parts: Part 1 (3.6 Ha) which abuts Tapscott Road will be transferred to Toronto Water for construction of a stonnwater retention pond; Part 2 (0.72 Ha) to be used for the extension of Select Ave.; Part 3 (1.9 Ha) which abuts Markham Road; and, Part 4 (0.01 Ha) to be declared surplus and sold. Only Part 3 is available. Emergency Management Services (EMS) is considering this site for a Centralized Book- On Station (CBOS). The CBOS would consist of a large, multi-function EMS facility for deploying a large number of emergency paramedic and other Operational vehicles to the eastern half ofthe City. Planning Approvals The new Toronto Official Plan designates this site as an Employment Area. The current zoning is Agricultural. Waste management is not a pennitted use in areas zoned for agricultural use. Rezoning would be required. Environmental Approvals The site would require a new EP A Part V waste site approval and a new EP A Section 9 approval for atmospheric emissions. Attachment 2 - 9 hiT. ---':....,.", I" . "4f1:Ç;(çLc", .. ~IORON'O Excerpts from the WORKS COMMITTEE DECISION DOCUMENT MEETING 2 Report 2 to be considered by City Council on April 25, 2006 Date of Meeting: Time: Location: Tuesday, March 7, 2006 9:30 a.m. Committee Room 1 City Hall 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario Enquiry: Rosalind Dyers Committee Administrator 416-392-8018 rdyers@toronto.ca SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 43. Planning Study for an Expanded Public SSO Processing System Recommendations Regarding Sites and Technologies Report 2, Clause 23 The Works Committee recommended that City Council adopt the recommendations of the SSO Sub-Committee contained in the communication (March 7, 2006) from the Sub-Committee, as follows: "It is recommended that: (1) the staff recommendations in the Recommendations Section of the report (March 3, 2006) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be adopted; and (2) the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized to explore opportunities to work with the Province of Ontario and the Federal Government to co-operatively examine source separated organic technologies, including the production and use of alternative fuels." .5 _'Y} -do 4f'..... Report (March 3, 2006) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services advising of the progress-to-date of the planning study for an expanded public Source Separated Organic (SSO) Processing System; and requesting Council approval of the recommendations regarding system capacity, products, technologies and potentially suitable sites. Recommendations: It is recommended that: System Capacity (1) the expanded publicly owned and/or operated (public) SSO processing system be sized to receive and process a total input of 110,000 tonnes-per-year of SSO material plus any required amendment materials on a two-shift basis as described in this report; Products (2) the expanded public SSO processing system be designed to produce: (a) high quality compost material, which meets the provincial regulatory requirements for unrestricted use and has no visible plastic or glass, as its primary finished product; and (b) if the system includes anaerobic digestion, either electricity or heat or natural gas suitable for use in City vehicles, as its secondary products; and (3) the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services and the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation be authorized and directed to develop a plan for the utilization of some or all of the compost products and soil amendment products derived from the City's SSO within the City's Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division; (4) the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services and the Director, Fleet Services be authorized and directed to investigate the feasibility of using natural gas derived from the anaerobic digestion of the City's SSO in City vehicles; Technologies (5) the following technologies be short-listed for further consideration in the study: (a) mechanical bag openers and rotary drums for bag opening; (b) wet pre-processing for physical contaminant removal; 5·" '....'....-.::...;:;.......... ;c,;;.:;:.:.:..;':"';¡ -,.,r. ~:00. (c) anaerobic digestion; (d) in-vessel horizontal bays or basins with mechanical agitation and forced aeration, and, if sufficient buffer is available, enclosed static piles with forced aeration and periodic mechanical agitation for active phase aerobic composting; and (e) indoor or outdoor aerobic curing and storage; (6) in addition to the 110,000 tonnes per year of processing capacity described in Recommendation (1), the expanded public SSG processing system may include a 5,000 to 10,000 tonne-per-year demonstration scale AT AD (autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion) facility; Sites (7) the following potentially suitable City-owned sites, along with any potentially suitable sites identified pursuant to Recommendation (10), be considered in the next phase of the study: (a) the Disco, Dufferin and Ingram transfer station sites; (b) the closed Beare Road, Morningside, Brock North, Brock South and Brock West landfill sites; and (c) 3301 Markham Road; (8) the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized and directed to conduct public consultation with the municipalities, government agencies and boards and the public living in the local communities in the vicinity of the sites under consideration to obtain feedback on potential impacts and mitigation measures; (9) the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized to make presentations to the respective Councils of Town of Ajax, the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham to describe the study if so requested by the municipalities; (10) prior to developing the system options to be evaluated in the next phase of the study, the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized and directed to: (a) develop conceptual designs for expanded pre-processing and anaerobic digestion if feasible at the Dufferin, Disco and Ingram transfer station sites and for pre-processing, anaerobic digestion and active phase composting if feasible at the closed Beare Road and Morningside landfill sites; , 5 .. ·,;)Cf& 44················ (b) enter into discussions with any or all of the Town of Ajax, the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham with respect to the possible development and use of any or all of the sites within their respective municipalities, as described in this report or otherwise as deemed appropriate by the General Manager, and report back to the SSO sub- committee with the results of any such discussions; and (c) enter into discussions with the General Managers of other City Divisions with respect to the possible use of sites currently under the control of other City Divisions and report directly to the April 2006 meeting of Council with the results of any such discussions. 43(a) Communication (March 7, 2006) from the SSO Sub-Committee of the Works Committee advising that the Sub-Committee on March 7, 2006, recommended to the Works Committee that City Council: (1) adopt the staff recommendations in the Recommendations Section of the report (March 3, 2006) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services; and (2) authorize the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services to explore opportunities to work with the Province of Ontario and the Federal Government to co-operatively examine source separated organic technologies, including the production and use of alternative fuels. and further requested the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services to: (i) review the designation of the lands in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law as one of the criteria for determining appropriateness of the proposed sites for a SSO processing facility; (ii) use the currently zoned M3 area of the site, during consideration of the Ingram Transfer Station site, be directed to use the currently zoned M3 area of the site; and (iii) consider creating a community benefit fund for the local community/area nearest to the potential SSO facilities as part of the overall site evaluation process.