It is worse than anyone imagined: Air Park land fill is in fact waste – much of which fails to meet standard tests.

By Pepper Parr

BURLINGTON, ON.  July 15, 2013.  The report that tells city hall just how bad the fill that has been dumped on Air Park lands has been leaked.  It is not a pretty picture.  Representatives from the Rural Burlington Green Coalition are both sick to their stomachs and dancing for joy because now there is, they believe, more than enough evidence to shut the site down and begin the process of removing the landfill.

The Terrapex Environmental was hired by the city to provide an opinion of fill quality within the framework of applicable federal and provincial regulations.   Approximately 500,000 cubic meters of fill has come to the Airport between 2008 and present.

Terrapex has taken the position that because the federal Aeronautics Act “is silent on matters of fill placement at airport sites” and further that if a site is “not owned by the federal government, regulatory evaluations automatically default to the applicable provincial regulations, and in some cases to applicable municipal regulations.”

Up until now Burlington Executive Air Park has taken the position that their project comes under federal regulation and they don’t have to comply with municipal, Regional or provincial regulations.

Terrapex says that Ontario Regulations made under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA), as well as regulations governing waste management, both apply. These regulations govern movement of waste from shipping sites and transportation of waste on Ontario roadways . Contaminated soil is considered a solid non-hazardous waste.

Should this prove to be the case both the Air Park organization and King Paving become liable under the regulations.

Terrapex analyzed 56 documents (shipping sites) covering 323 samples (2 indicated material that was rejected; 2 provided no chemical data) thus 52 reports had data to be reviewed; the majority from 2010 and 2011. The  Terrapex report suggests “either much of the fill was not tested or all of the data was not available or provided.”

The provincial regulations require that chemical analysis of soils to be received is one sample per 160 cubic metres for first 5000 cubic meters and one sample per 300 thereafter. To comply with these regulations 1700 samples would have been needed for the Airport. The sum of samples was 52 reports covering 323 samples. Thus, Terrapex concluded “the sampling frequency was inadequate.”

Only one of the 52 reports provided any rationale for expected contaminants of concerns at the shipping site, therefore Terrapex cannot conclude that appropriate analyses were completed at the remaining 51 shipping sites. Thus the adequacy of the sampling programs to determine potential contamination “cannot be assured.”

The report differentiates between Table 1 data and Table 2 data.  The difference is: Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards.  (Everything about the site)

Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition.

Terrapex explains that only materials meeting Table 1 Site Condition Standards are appropriate for the use of fill at the site. Only 134 samples (41%) from 13 of 52 sites  met the Table 1 Site Condition Standards (thus, by projection,  at best 200,000 or 500,000 cubic meters meets the standard). 17 of the 39 sites yielded failing samples, and “indicated exceedences of Table 1 standards for parameters such as petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and/or metals such as cadmium, lead, antimony and zinc.”

The report has the Air Park owner screening results to ensure fill met Table 2 standards. Only 244 of 323 samples met Table 2.  Halton Region has said Table 2 standards “are not appropriate for the site due to the presence of environmentally sensitive sites proximate to the Airport lands.”

What does all this technical language mean?  If the report is valid, and there is no reason to believe it is anything but valid, then the Air Park has been dumping what is classified as waste.

The deposit of waste at the Airport site has essentially resulted in the establishment of an unlicensed waste disposal site, which may have ramifications for not only the receiver but the various shippers and haulers of the waste.”

John Hutter in the foreground along with Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster, Carey Clarke from the city’s Engineering department and property owner Carl Cousins inspect the landfill at the edge of the Cousin’s farm property and the flooding of the farmland. The city now knows that much of the landfill is really waste.

It gets worse.  Over the weekend Halton Liberal candidate Indira Naidoo-Harris toured the Cousins property on Appleby Line and observed the dumping of what everyone watching said looked like sludge.  Was this material from the flooding in Toronto and does anyone know what was in those trucks?