*NB – Please share this…

*NB – Please share this submission publicly on the EBR registry. EH is a not-for-profit organization and so there are no privacy issues regarding the information submitted as part of this commenting process!

July 9, 2018

RE: EBR Registry No 013-3048, Ministry Ref No 1159-AXYPHY

Dear Madam/Sir,

Please accept this submission as Environment Hamilton’s formal comments on Recyling 101’s application for an Environmental Compliance Approval for a waste disposal processing site at 123 Princess Street in Hamilton.

CONCERNS REGARDING EXISTING NUMBER OF WASTE FACILITIES IN NEIGHBOURHOOD We have already provided detailed comments regarding this application to the City of Hamilton’s Planning Department as a municipal zoning change is required to allow the proposed use at this location.

Environment Hamilton is concerned about any proposal to modify the current zoning for 119-123 Princess Street. The current municipal M6 zoning (Light Industrial) limits the industrial activities permitted on these lands for good reason – there is a residential neighbourhood in very close proximity to this area. The proponent itself recognizes in its Planning Justification Report at page 5 that ‘the nearest private residence is within 27.55 meters of the subject property boundary and the shipping receiving doors are 32.67 meters from the nearest residential structure’ (underlining added). It is important to note that, at the time of this submission, the proponent has not yet secured a zoning amendment from the municipality for this proposed facility.

We are also very aware of a number of other facilities in this neighbourhood for which past zoning by-law ‘exceptions’ have been grandfathered into the new Zoning By-Law, several of which are an on-going source of impacts in nearby residential areas. In at least three cases that we are aware of, zoning exceptions have been made that reduce the required width of buffers between industrial and residential uses – in two cases to 0 meters in order to permit industrial uses that normally would not be permitted closer than 700m to residentially zoned lands (see attached map showing locations of exceptions). The close proximity of these facilities is also counter to MOECC’s D-6 Guide and raises concerns about the cumulative impacts of so many facilities so close to a residential area.

These existing facilities include:

• Canadian Liquids Processors – located at 15 Biggar Avenue – is listed as M5 Exception 351 – There are residential homes located immediately adjacent to CLP. The facility has had extensive problems with odour impacts that have been felt well beyond Biggar Avenue into the surrounding Lucy Day neighbourhood. The facility recently underwent an MOECC review as a result of a successful EBR application for review submitted by two residents from the neighbourhood. Its ECAs were updated and extensive requirements put in place for odour assessments and actions.
• EZ Waste (Formerly Biz Environmental) – located at 221 Lottridge – is listed as M6 Exception 350 – This waste transfer station is located immediately adjacent to homes located on the north side of Clinton. Homeowners have complained about chronic problems with odour, dust, vermin, and noise from this facility. There have also been concerns about noise and activity at this site outside of permitted operating hours. The facility is currently dormant but up for sale, with residents very concerned about what sort of facility may end up locating here.
• Envirosystems (formerly Hotz Environmental) – located at 239 Lottridge – is listed as M6 Exception 357 – This facility manages hazardous waste.

Residents are dealing with noise, dust, and odour impacts that migrate beyond these properties into the adjacent neighbourhood.

The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change’s guide D6 - Compatibility Between Industrial Facilities sets out appropriate separation distances between various classes of industrial uses and ‘sensitive’ land uses including residential areas. For Class II facilities – which is the category we believe this facility fits into – the recommended separation distance is 300m. Even if an argument is made that this facility fits into the Class 1 category, the separation distance recommended for such a facility is at least 70m from a sensitive land use.

Based on both the provincial and municipal policies around waste facilities and separation distances, it is our understanding that a zoning by-law amendment is required to reduce the separation distance to within 70 to 300 metres from a sensitive land use. Based on this, it appears to us that the policies in the provincial D-6 Guide DO NOT support a separation distance between a waste facility and a sensitive land use that is any less than 70 metres. We therefore believe that Recycling 101’s proposal to establish its facility at this location, in a manner that effectively reduces the separation distance to 27.55 metres – far less than the minimum 70 metres that a zoning by-law amendment would be required to secure - is counter to the provincial D-6 Guide.

To summarize, we believe the proponent’s request to set up in this particular location is inappropriate given the existing cumulative burden of impacts from industrial activities already located adjacent to this neighbourhood as a result of historical and now grandfathered zoning exceptions for other waste facilities in the area, not to mention the minimum separation distances set out in MOECC’s D-6 Guide.

OTHER CONCERNS REGARDING POTENTIAL FACILITY IMPACTS We have a host of other concerns related to this proposed facility – issues relating to the waste processing site ECA as well as some issues that we believe point to the requirement for an ECA (Air & Noise) for this proposed facility. We will work through each of these concerns in the following paragraphs.

SERVICE AREA: The proponent has applied for the facility to be able to accept e-waste from anywhere in North America. We do not support a service area that is this far-reaching. At an Open House and subsequent community meeting, we had the opportunity to ask the proponent a host of questions. When asked about the service area, they explained that the majority of the materials they anticipate processing at the plant, with very few exceptions, will be from Ontario. Given this reality, we are far more comfortable with the service area being defined as all of Ontario only.

AIR & NOISE CONCERNS: We have a number of concerns related to the potential for air (particulate) emissions and noise from the facility. Further, we understand that these issues are best addressed via an ECA (Air & Noise) and we wonder why this facility does not require such an approval. The proponent has described their operation as being comparable to the secondary processing that takes place at a facility called Global Electric Electronic Processing Inc. (GEEP), located at 220 John Street in Barrie, Ontario. That facility has both an ECA (Waste Processing) and an ECA (Air & Noise). We are left wondering whether activities proposed for 123 Princess Street warrant a requirement for an ECA (Air & Noise).

In GEEP’s ECA (Air) (Number 2382-AAZM7A) issued on July 21, 2016, the MOECC references the following activities taking place at the company’s Barrie processing facility:

• metal distributing; painting; computer refurbishing; sorting; chopping; grinding; separating; dust collecting; plastic baling; chain shredding; hammer milling; centrifuging; shredding; - briquette forming; - trommelling; - plastic foil separating; - plastic granulating; - red metal mixing; - aluminum separating; - precious metal separating; - chopping and mixing; - water separation; - catalytic reaction; - distillation; - pulverizing;

As far as we are aware, the Hamilton facility will not be undertaking any catalytic reaction or distillation activities, but many of the other activities may be taking place at the Hamilton facility based on what the proponent has explained to the community. Given that an ECA (Air & Noise) was needed for the GEEP Barrie Plant for these activities, we believe an ECA (Air & Noise) is also necessary for the proposed Hamilton facility and we wonder why the proponent has not applied for one.

We have concerns about dust and dust management at the facility, where the proponent plans to undertake secondary processing of electronic waste. We have been told that ‘triaging’ of that waste will occur at the company’s ADL Process facility on Keele Street in Toronto and then the more involved secondary processing – including shredding and water salination separation to name two of the processing activities – will occur in Hamilton.

Company representatives have indicated that they will use a baghouse-style dust collector that, as far as we understand, will capture any dust and particulate generated by the shredder line they are proposing to operate at the new site. The proponent has stated that there will be no discharge to the atmosphere via vents or a stack. But we still have concerns about dust issues and whether any particulate pollution from the waste processing will be emitted from the facility out into the surrounding neighbourhood.

We also asked detailed questions about the shredder – including who the manufacturer is and what the model of the shredder. We were told that there is no manufacturer – that the line is being built by the proponent. So we have no real sense of what the line consists of and what sort of systems are in place to control noise and dust from the line. The proponent plans to operate the line beyond 7pm so there are concerns about noise and impacts on nearby residents. We believe an acoustic assessment should be required for the shredder line and any other processing equipment that might generate noise, vibration and air emissions in the neighbourhood. It is worth noting that the GEEP facility in Barrie was required by MOECC to undertake an acoustic assessment of their operation making us believe that a similar assessment should be required for Recycling 101. We note that the only assurance that we have that there will not be any noise impacts is a statement from the company in their ECA application that ‘(E)quipment will be operated such that it conforms to the City of Hamilton Noise By-Law No 11-285 and provincial requirements’. How can we be assured that this is what the actual outcome will be in reality? Further, we understand that additional requirements were imposed on the proponent at their ADL Process facility on Keele Street in Toronto to mitigate noise impacts, including:

• Adjusting the site plan to move baling equipment towards the front of the warehouse (presumably a location further away from sensitive land uses like residential areas)
• Adding wheels to plastic collection boxes
• Placing rubber feet on the bottom of plastic grinders.

These changes were made as a result of public comment on an ECA application. We would like similar measures to be required at the Hamilton plant, if approved.

But again, at the most fundamental level, we urge the MOECC to require an acoustic assessment prior to granting any approval for Recycling 101’s Princess Street facility to determine the impacts of noise from the facility and whether additional mitigation measures are required. .

OTHER CONCERNS: We also have several comments regarding the waste amounts the proponent is seeking approval to receive and store on site at any given time. Our understanding is that they have requested the following:

• The receipt, processing and transfer of 100 tonnes per day of solid waste (WEEE) from the IC&I sector.
• A maximum waste storage quantity of 750 tonnes at any given time.

We note that the company’s ADL Process site in Toronto is restricted to a ‘(T)otal amount of waste and processed material present on site at any one time’ of 300 tonnes. Further, the maximum residual for final disposal on site at any time is restricted to 3 tonnes per day. The site storage restrictions are stricter at the Toronto plant and we would like consistency for restrictions imposed at the proposed Hamilton facility.

We also understand that a density separation system will be used at the plant – a closed loop saline line that will not be disposed of or discharged. But if electronic components are fed through this system it only stands to reason that there may be chemicals or other materials on these components that end up dissolving in a saline solution. This solution will require replacing at some point and it is unclear how frequently and what the disposal plan will be.

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this ECA application.

Yours truly, Lynda Lukasik, PhD Executive Director Environment Hamilton

Cc Board of Directors – Environment Hamilton