May 7, 1998

To:Chairman and Members of the Works and Utility Committee

 From:Michael A. Price, P.Eng., FICE, Interim Functional Lead, Solid Waste Management

 Subject:Old Landfill Site Survey and Remediation Programs to Address Issues of Public, Environmental and Corporate (City) Risk

   Purpose:

 This report discusses the issues of risk associated with known old landfill sites within City boundaries, describes the existing risk management programs currently addressing these issues in Scarborough District, and proposes a pro-active position to initiate risk management initiatives dealing with old landfill sites across the City.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 The approved 1998 Solid Waste Management Capital Works program identifies three projects which address landfill site risk issues.

 1.Project SW605-Perpetual Care for Metro=s closed sites $3,665,000 (from reserve)

2.Project SW409-Old Landfill Site Remediation, Scarborough District $700,000 (capital requirement)

3.Project SW410-Old Landfill Site Survey, Scarborough District, $300,000 (capital requirement)

 Sufficient funds are available to proceed with these three programs as they apply to Metro=s 14 closed sites and Scarborough=s 25 known old sites.

 No funds have been allocated for creating and executing a risk management program for the remaining 38 old landfill sites known to exist in other City districts.

 The proposed expansion of the site investigation in 1998 is estimated at $200,000 and funding will be found within the Solid Waste Management approved 1998 budget.

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 1.Council adopt a proactive approach to addressing the risks and issues associated with all old landfill sites across the City

 2.Staff proceed to expand existing Metro and Scarborough programs by conducting initial site assessments and proceeding through to the development of remedial options and action plan reports for known or suspected old landfill sites in other Districts.

 3.Staff to report back starting in 1999 on the risk evaluation and site status and to identify whether any remedial action needs to be accelerated and included in the capital program or funded from alternate sources.

 4.All technical and professional support required be supplied from within existing staff where possible. Outside consultants to be engaged to conduct non-intrusive investigations and report on risks.

 Council Reference/Background/History:

 Human health and safety, environmental impairment and corporate (City) risk are issues associated with old landfill sites on both City property and privately owned sites containing municipal waste dumped by the six former municipalities.

 Over the years, household and commercial refuse, as well as construction/demolition type materials were disposed of at various landfill sites operated by area municipalities and Metropolitan Toronto. These sites were usually operated under an agreement between the municipality and site owner, or were owned and operated by the municipality.

 Disposal activities conducted before the 1940's typically included minimal amounts of organic (putrescible) material. Sites were usually burned on a frequent basis leaving only ash, metal and glass refuse.

 During the 1940's and 1950's sites received increasing amounts of organic material as well as commercial and some industrial refuse. Burning operations were largely curtailed by the mid 1950's, therefore the organic material was allowed to decompose to create liquid (leachate) and gas (methane) by-products.

 Most sites in operation prior to the mid 1960's were opportunistic sites utilizing existing valley lands, lowland areas and quarry pits. Site operation practices were unregulated and varied greatly between sites and owners. Most sites were small in size (0.5 to 5 ha).

 The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was created in 1953. Metro took responsibility for garbage disposal in 1967 and used engineered land filling operations that were considered to be the

best practices of the time. At that time, area municipalities ceased filling operations at their own sites.

  In 1971, Provincial legislation was enacted to require that a Certificate of Approval (C of A) be issued for the operation of a waste disposal site. The conditions set within the C of A dictated a standard of care that was to be conducted during filling operations. When filling operations ceased, the site had to be officially closed and a perpetual care program enacted to minimize long term leachate and gas emission problems.

 The Ministry of Environment conducted a province wide survey in 1981 to identify all known landfill sites.

 The 1991 updated list identifies 77 known sites within the City boundary.

 York 0North York13

Toronto 2East York25

Etobicoke12Scarborough25

 Metro currently has 14 known landfill sites, within the City, that are maintained under their perpetual care program which involves scheduled monitoring and maintenance. Map attached as Appendix AA@.

 There are at least 63 other known sites across the City that were operated before the legislation was created. These uncertified sites are referred to as >old= landfill sites.

 The sites that are owned by the City, or that have been used by the City, may constitute a potential risk to the City as imposed by adverse effects (both measurable and perceived) on human health or the environment.

 The adverse effects, caused by on-site contaminants and decomposing waste, include:

 i)human health and safety that is affected directly by exposure to contaminants on-site, and/or explosion hazard;

ii)animal and plant health may be affected directly which then indirectly affects humans or commercial processes;

iii)general (unspecified) Aenvironmental degradation@ which has relative value only in comparison to surrounding properties or because of unique environmental attributes;

iv)failure to contain all contamination on-site creates potential liability with surrounding property owners.

 The degree of contamination on a property is not static in nature:

 i)contaminants may interact with one another and create new types of contamination;

ii)transport and migration of contaminants exhibit dynamic seasonal and annual trends.

 Individual claims against the former City of Scarborough, by owners of properties abutting old landfill sites, has reached as high as $50 million.

 Corporate efforts to settle these claims quickly revealed the value in having effective risk management programs to address old landfill site issues. Scarborough=s old landfill site survey and remediation programs (established in 1992) have currently investigated most of the 25 known sites and have proceeded to remediate the top priority sites. Survey, remediation and land use control options are continuing to be applied to the remaining sites as needed. Long term monitoring of the sites is being conducted to verify the effectiveness of remedial and control actions.

 Establishing risk management procedures (see Table 1) and maintaining environmental liability insurance are two fundamental components of dealing with legal issues involving the public and regulatory agencies.

 In order to identify the activities associated with the ideal assessment, remediation and monitoring of an old landfill site, the table summarizes the activities and remediation programs.

   Table 1: LONG TERM SCHEDULE FOR OLD LANDFILL RISK MANAGEMENT

   * Total costs per site can be offset by developing partnerships with adjacent property owners.

     The City can consider a few options for dealing with the old landfill sites.

  Option 1-Status Quo

 a)resolve that the existing landfill programs continue as proposed, and as funded, without increasing their scope to include any other sites;

 b)staff to apply contingency plans, land use control options and emergency response action plans to sites within the existing programs but not to extend these activities to sites in other districts.

 If Option 1 is chosen, the potential City risk issues at sites in other districts will not be addressed. Emergency response and contingency plans will not be available for immediate use in other districts.

 No additional funds are required for 1998.

  Option 2-Assess and Monitor

 a)to maintain the Perpetual Care and Remediation programs and to pro-actively extend the scope (beginning in 1998) of the old landfill survey program to include sites from other districts by:

 i)initiating site identification;

ii)conducting site investigations; and

iii)producing risk evaluation and site status reports.

 b)staff to:

 i)apply contingency plans, land use control options and emergency response action plans to sites within the existing programs;

ii)initiate site surveys in other districts;

iii)seek and negotiate partnerships with abutting property owners;

iv)extend contingency plans, land use control options and emergency response action plans to these additional sites as required.

 If Option 2 is chosen, the potential City risk issues will be addressed by pro-actively providing site surveys in all districts and actively seeking partnerships with abutting property owners.

 Immediate funding implications for 1998, above the existing funding, include an additional $200 K for initiating site identification in other districts. No intrusive site investigation is proposed for 1998.

 Long term funding (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), including site investigation, risk evaluation and status reporting, is estimated to be $600 K per year above the proposed funding for existing programs.

 Sufficient funds are available in Solid Waste Management=s Reserve account for Perpetual care of landfills.

    Option 3-Assess and Remediate

 a)maintain the Perpetual Care program and to pro-actively extend the scope of the old landfill site survey and remediation programs to include sites from all districts by:

 i)initiating site identification (beginning in 1998);

ii)conducting site investigation (beginning in 1999);

iii)producing risk evaluation and site status reports (beginning in 1999); and

iv)implementation of remedial actions, on a site by site basis (beginning 2000).

 b)staff to

 i)continue with the Perpetual Care program, as proposed;

ii)apply all survey and remediation activities to sites in all districts.

 If Option 3 is chosen, the potential City risk issues will be addressed and site remediation will be achieved on a continued basis. The advantage of this option is that potential public and regulatory agency legal issues will be minimized, and that land use opportunities may be realized at an early stage.

 Immediate funding implications for 1998, above the existing funding, include an additional$200 K for site identification in other districts.

 Long term funding (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), including remediation, is estimated to range from $3,900,000 to $38,400,000 above the proposed funding for existing programs.

  Conclusions:

 In the new City of Toronto, risk management procedures will come under greater scrutiny as the City moves to become self-insured.

 The existence of 63 known old sites, of which approximately 38 have not been surveyed or remediated, is a significant potential risk to the City, city inhabitants and the environment.

 Consideration of the historic topography of the old City of Toronto, compared to current land elevations, suggests that even more undocumented sites may exist.

 An effective risk management program could deal with the known sites and provide a contingency plan (and some due-diligence) toward unknown sites and their associated risks.

 To be successful, implementation of a City wide old landfill site risk management program requires active participation and support from legal, insurance, real estate, facility, parks, works and emergency services, planning and building professionals from within the corporation.

Most, if not all, of this expertise collectively exists within the amalgamated staff of the City.

 Council can choose from a number of recommended options to pro-actively deal with these risks. Implementation costs of existing programs are funded in the 1998 Capital Works Program. No funds have been allocated for expanding the existing survey and remediation programs to cover the whole of the City.

Contact Name:

 John D. Minor, B.Sc., M.Sc.,

Manager of Water Resources

Works and Emergency Services

Tel: 396-4949

Fax: 396-4156

e-mail minor@city.scarborough.on.ca

  Respectfully submitted,Concurred by,

  Michael A. PriceBarry H. Gutteridge

Interim Functional LeadCommissioner

Solid Waste ManagementWorks and Emergency Services

 MAP/JDM/cb