Ministry Review of the Durham/York Residual Waste Study Environmental Assessment

Environmental Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, Subsection 7(1)

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Ministry Review was February 19, 2010. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Ministry Review documents the Ministry’s evaluation of the Environmental Assessment and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

The Regional Municipalities of Durham and York.

What

Ministry Review of the Amended Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes the construction and operation of a Thermal Treatment Waste Management Facility capable of processing up to 140,000 tonnes of residual municipal solid waste (the waste remaining after diversion) annually. The facility will include an electrical power generating system which will produce electricity for in-house use and delivery to the municipal grid.

When

Original EA submitted: July 31, 2009
Amended EA submitted: November 27, 2009
Addendum to amended EA submitted: December 21, 2009
Ministry Review comment period: February 26, 2010–April 2, 2010

Where

The proposed thermal treatment facility is to be located south of Highway 401 on the west side of Osborne Road and north of the CN Rail corridor in the Municipality of Clarington.

Why

The undertaking is intended to provide the Regions of Durham and York with a long term sustainable solution to manage the solid waste remaining after diversion (reuse, reduction, recycling and composting) and to minimize the amount of waste requiring landfill disposal.

Conclusions

The ministry Review has concluded that the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and the Environmental Assessment Act. The proposed thermal treatment facility will benefit the communities in the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York. The ministry is satisfied that the proposed mitigation methods and contingencies will ensure that any potential negative impacts will be minimized and managed.

Environmental assessment process

Environmental Assessment (EA) is a proponent led planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision making by assessing the potential effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general contents for the preparation of an EA, as well as the ministry’s evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the potential environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how potential environmental effects can be managed.

An EA may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The EA must also consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent will complete various studies and consult with interested stakeholders, including government agencies, the public and potentially affected Aboriginal communities, to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to carry out monitoring in order to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and conditions of EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

The first step in the application for approval to proceed with an undertaking under the EAA is the submission of a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment (ministry) for approval. An approved ToR becomes the framework for the preparation of an EA.

On December 31, 2005 the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York (Regions) submitted the Durham and York Residual Waste Disposal Planning Study ToR to the ministry for approval. The ToR stated that the EA would be prepared in accordance with Section 6(2)(a) of the EAA. The ToR established the rationale for identifying a long term sustainable solution to manage the Regions' municipal solid waste (MSW) remaining after diversion (reuse, reduction, recycling and composting) and to minimize the amount of waste requiring landfill disposal. The ToR described how the Regions would assess alternatives, assess potential environmental effects and consult with the interested persons during the preparation of the EA.

The ToR was made available for a theirty day public and government agency comment period which ended on February 6, 2006. During this time all interested persons, government agencies and Aboriginal communities could review and provide comments about the proposed ToR to the ministry for consideration.

The Minister approved the Durham and York Residual Waste Disposal Planning Study ToR on March 31, 2006.

1.2 Environmental assessment

The application for approval to proceed with an undertaking under the EAA is completed with the submission of an EA to the Minister of the Environment (Minister) for review and a decision. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR. The Regions submitted the Durham and York Residual Waste Study EA to the ministry on July 31, 2009. The EA seeks approval to construct and operate a thermal treatment facility in the Municipality of Clarington. The facility, if approved, would receive and process up to 140,000 tonnes of residual MSW annually.

The EA was made available for a seven week public and government agency comment period which ended on September 25, 2009. During this time all interested persons, government agencies and Aboriginal communities could review and provide comments on the EA. The EA was also circulated to a Government Review Team (GRT) made up of federal, provincial and local government agencies. The GRT reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions in the EA were valid, based on their agencies' mandates.

All comments received by the ministry during the initial comment period on the original EA (July 2009) were forwarded to the Regions for a response. Summaries of the comments received during the initial comment period on the original EA (July 2009), along with the Regions' responses can be found in Tables 1 to 3 of this ministry Review (Review).

On November 27, 2009, the Regions formally submitted an amended EA for a thermal treatment waste management facility to the ministry for review and a decision. Additional information clarifying and addressing the concerns raised during the initial EA comment period was added to the original EA (July 2009) by way of the amendment.

The amended EA (November 2009) was circulated to the GRT for comment and to ensure that the concerns raised were addressed. The amended EA (November 2009) was made available for a three week GRT comment period which ended on December 18, 2009. The Regions also provided written notice to all persons, Aboriginal communities and government agencies who participated during the EA process to inform all participants about the submission of the amended EA, where the amended EA could be viewed, and the next steps in the EA process.

All comments received by the ministry during the comment period on the amended EA (November 2009) were forwarded to the Regions for a response. Summaries of all comments received during the comment period on the amended EA (November 2009), along with the Regions' responses can be found in Table 1 of this Review. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B of this Review.

All comments received by the ministry will be considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the proposed undertaking. Summaries of the comments received during the original EA (July 2009) public and government agency comment period and amended EA (November 2009) GRT review period, along with the Regions' responses, are included in Tables 1 to 3 of this Review.

The Regions' letters seeking approval to postpone the Review and amend the original EA (July 2009), including the ministry’s responses, are included in Appendix C.

1.3 Ministry review

Section 7 of the EAA requires that the ministry prepare a review of the EA currently before the Minister for a decision, known simply as the Review. The Review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. The ministry Review determines whether the EA provides sufficient information to allow the Minister to make a decision about a proposed undertaking.

This Review has been prepared for the Durham and York Residual Waste Study Amended EA submitted to the ministry for review and a decision on November 27, 2009 and the Addendum to Section 9.2 of the Amended EA submitted to the ministry on December 21, 2009. The Review outlines whether the information contained in the amended EA, which includes the addendum to section 9.2, supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, government agency and Aboriginal community comments on the original EA (July 2009), the amended EA (November 2009), the addendum to section 9.2 of the amended EA (December 2009) and the proposed undertaking.

A Notice of Completion of this Review will be published in a number of locally and regionally distributed newspapers. The Notice will identify that the Review has been completed and will be available for a five-week comment period, from February 26, 2010 to April 2, 2010. Copies of this Review will also be placed in the same public record locations where the original EA (July 2009) was available, and copies will be distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who participated during the EA process will be notified of the comment period on the Review and have been provided direction on how and where to obtain a copy of this Review.

The comment period for this Review allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their concerns with the original EA (July 2009), the amended EA (November 2009), the addendum to section 9.2 of the amended EA (December 2009) and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the amended EA (November 2009), section 9.2 of the amended EA (December 2009), the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the amended EA (November 2009), which includes the addendum to section 9.2, or any particular matter relating to the amended EA (November 2009), to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the amended EA (November 2009) has not addressed. A request for a hearing can only be made during the Review comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

The Minister considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision. The Review itself is not the EA decision-making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the five-week Review comment period and is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The proposed undertaking

The Regions are seeking approval to construct and operate a thermal treatment waste management facility as described in the Durham and York Residual Waste Study Amended EA submitted to the ministry on November 27, 2009 for review and a decision. The facility is intended to provide the Regions with a long term sustainable solution to manage the MSW remaining after diversion (reuse, reduction, recycling and composting) and to minimize the amount of waste requiring landfill disposal.

Prior to the commencement of the Durham and York Residual Waste Study EA process, the Regions' waste management strategy involved the export of residual MSW to the State of Michigan, United States of America (USA), for disposal. Due to the inability of the Regions to develop long term local disposal capacity to manage their waste, they entered into contracts with the private sector to secure disposal capacity outside their respective jurisdictions. During this time the USA government initiated a process of passing legislation that, if successful, would see the Michigan border closed to MSW from Canada. As a result, the Regions would no longer have sufficient waste disposal capacity. The Regions therefore initiated the EA process to establish a new long term sustainable and local waste disposal solution to jointly manage the post diversion residual MSW each jurisdiction generates for the next 35 years.

The proposed facility will process up to 140,000 tonnes of post diversion residual MSW annually; however, over the 35 year planning period the maximum capacity of the facility could be increased up to 400,000 tonnes per year. Any expansion of the facility beyond the proposed 140,000 tonnes per year capacity will be considered to be a new undertaking. Any future expansion of the facility will be subject to the applicable approval requirements under the EAA and any associated regulations.

The proposed facility is to be located south of Highway 401 on the west side of Osborne Road and north of the CN Rail corridor in the Municipality of Clarington (Figure 1). The recommended site is approximately 12.1 hectares, owned by the Regional Municipality of Durham and designated as an employment area by the Durham Official Plan. The recommended site is surrounded to the north by commercial properties, to the east and west by undeveloped land and lands used for agricultural purposes, and to the south by the Courtice Water Pollution Control Plant. The Darlington Nuclear Generating Station is located 1.8 kilometres (km) to the east. There are two residences within one km of the site, with the closest 650 metres away.

The proposed facility includes two independent waste processing lines, capable of managing up to 218 tonnes of residual MSW per day and up to 70,000 tonnes of residual MSW per year. Each line will consist of a feed chute, stoker, boiler combustion furnace, acid gas scrubber, fabric baghouse and an associated ash and residual collection system (Figure 2). Steam produced by the boilers will drive an electrical generating system to produce up to 20 megawatts (MW) electricity for use within the facility and the local electricity grid.

Residual MSW will be delivered to the facility in trucks, with capacities of up to 92 cubic metres. It is anticipated that truck traffic will utilize Highway 401 and either south Service Road or Osborne Road to access the facility. although the facility is expected to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, trucks will be expected to enter and leave the facility during regular working hours, Monday through Saturday.

Upon entering the site, each truck will pass through a scale house where it will be weighed to maintain an accurate record of all waste delivered to the facility and all residues and recovered materials. In addition, the scale house will have sensors for medical and other unacceptable volatile wastes. If unacceptable or hazardous wastes are detected, the truck will not be permitted to discharge its load and will be directed to leave the site.

After being weighed, incoming trucks will proceed directly to the tipping building entrance. Once inside the tipping building, trucks will discharge their loads directly into the refuse pit where waste will be mixed and transferred to the hoppers which feed each of the waste processing lines.

Each processing line will begin with waste being fed from the hoppers to the stoker grates. Combustion will be initiated with a small fire that will quickly spread across the grate. Air will be will drawn from the tipping floor and refuse pit area and directed to the waste layer through specially designed air slots in the grate. This will ensure that consistent air distribution and proper combustion. The resulting negative pressure inside the tipping area will also create a constant air change and prevent the escape of odours.

Bottom ash will be cooled in a quench bathe and the wet bottom ash fed into a draining and drying chute. The chute will ensure that any excess water from the bottom ash will drain back into the quench bathe. The bottom ash will then be screened to remove any large materials, ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals. Following appropriate testing to determine if the material is hazardous or not, as defined and regulated by the Province of Ontario, the bottom ash will then be transported off site to a landfill facility licensed to receive the material. Fly ash is to be collected and managed separately from bottom ash.

The boiler will be designed and operated to minimize pollutants such as Carbon Monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons. The products of combustion (flue gases) will be treated by an air pollution control system. The air pollution control system will consist of the following series of equipment and processes:

• A Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Control System
• An Activated Carbon Injection System (mercury, dioxin and furan control)
• An Acid Gas Scrubber (acid gas control)
• A High Efficiency Fabric Filter Baghouse (particulate control)

One air pollution control system will be installed for each line in the facility. In addition to the above mentioned air pollution control system, the facility will be also designed and operated to include the following initiatives:

• Air Emission Standards—the air emissions standards that will govern the facility are to be the lower of Ontario Guideline A-7 “Combustion and Air Pollution Control Requirements for New Municipal Waste Incinerators” (February 2007) limits and the European Union Standards for the Incineration Exhaust.
• Air Emission Monitoring—the facility will be equipped with a continuous dioxin sampling system to assess the dioxin emissions from the facility monthely.
• Stormwater Discharge—the facility and stormwater management works will be designed to ensure water being discharged from the site will meet the highest water quality standard for storm water.
• Process Water Discharge—the facility will be designed for zero process water discharge to allow for recirculation of water within the system and limit the potential impact to water resources.
• Environmental Management—the facility will be consistent with the International Stanards Organization 14001:2004 Environmental Management Standards.

A fly ash handling system will collect the fly ash from the air pollution control system. Fly ash will be collected mixed with Portland cement, cement extender and water to bind the ash together. In Ontario, fly ash is designated as hazardous and after the fly ash has been bound together it will be loaded into trucks and shipped off site to a licensed landfill facility, as defined and regulated by the Province of Ontario.

If EAA approval is granted, the thermal treatment waste management facility will be constructed and operated in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the amended EA; any conditions of approval; and, will include the details outlined above. In addition, the Regions must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Figure 1: Thermal treatment waste management facility location Clarington 01

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of this figure.

Figure 2: Conceptual facility process flow

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of this figure.

Results of the ministry review

The Review provides the analysis of the EA. The Review is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the decision making process, refer to the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

This Review was prepared for the Durham and York Residual Waste Study Amended EA submitted to the ministry on November 27, 2009 and the Addendum to Section 9.2 of the Amended EA submitted to the ministry on December 21, 2009. The amended EA (November 2009) is comprised of the original EA (July 2009) and all additional information clarifying and addressing the concerns raised during the initial comment period on the original EA (July 2009) made by way of the amendment and addendum.

3.1 Compliance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry has concluded that the amended EA (November 2009) followed the framework set out in the approved ToR and addresses each of the commitments set forthe in the ToR. The ministry has also concluded the required components of the EAA have been met.

Appendix A of this Review summarizes the ministry’s analysis of the amended EA (November 2009) and how the requirements of the approved ToR and EAA have been addressed.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EA process is consultation with interested persons. Consultation is a legal requirement of the EAA and is completed during the preparation of the EA. Consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be undertaken prior to the submission of the EA and completed in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the approved ToR. Proponents are required to involve all interested persons as early as possible in the EA planning process to ensure that their concerns can be identified and considered before irreversible decisions and commitments are made during the planning process. The results of the consultation must be documented at the end of the planning process.

As part of the consultation plan developed by the Regions, consultation was undertaken with all government agencies, Aboriginal communities, and members of the public who may be affected or have an interest in the EA process.

Notification and dissemination of information was undertaken through newspaper, radio and TV advertising, a mailing list, and an EA website maintained throughout the EA process. Consultation included public polling, consultation events such as public information centres, and opportunities for delegations at Regional Committee and Council meetings. Consultation was also undertaken through the development of public liaison committees, such as the Joint Waste Management Group and the Site Liaison Committee. although opportunities for public input were available throughout the EA process, consultation events typically took place at major EA milestones.

The ministry is satisfied with the level of consultation that occurred during the EA process. The ministry is also satisfied that the level of consultation was appropriate for the proposed undertaking for which EA approval is being sought. The amended EA (November 2009) clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by the Region to engage the GRT, the general public, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities during the EA process.

Upon the submission of the original EA (July 2009) to the ministry for review and a decision, the ministry undertook additional consultation with interested persons during the initial comment period on the original EA (July 2009). The GRT, Aboriginal communities and interested members of the public were provided with an opportunity to review the original EA (July 2009) and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the original EA (July 2009) itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the ministry during the initial comment period on the original EA (July 2009) were forwarded to the Regions for a response. Summaries of the all comments received during the initial comment period on the original EA (July 2009), along with the Regions' responses are included in Tables 1 to 3 of this Review.

Government Review Team

Various government agencies were consulted by the Regions during the EA process. The GRT was established early in the EA process and consisted of different levels of government (i.e. federal, provincial, regional, and municipal), and other municipal agencies. A list of GRT members, their affiliation, and departments can be found in the EA Record of Consultation.

The Regions' consultation plan ensured that opportunities for the GRT were provided to seek input and identify issues at each specific milestone of the EA process. The GRT was also consulted throughout the EA planning process to gather expert opinions on the reports and studies prepared during the EA process.

In addition, the Regions coordinated a series of EA process workshops with members of the GRT during the preparation of the EA. The first workshop was held in September 2006 to review the evaluation methodology and evaluation criteria for the assessment of EA alternatives. The purpose of the first workshop was to present a draft of the “front-end” of the original EA (July 2009) document, up to and including the identification of the preferred waste management system and recommended preferred site. The second workshop, comprised of two sessions, was held in April and May 2009. During the workshop a draft of the entire original EA (July 2009) document was presented to members of the GRT for review and comment.

Consultation with the GRT allowed the Regions to seek input and identify issues covering a wide spectrum of expertise for input into the EA planning process. The comments that were received in response to consultation with the GRT and in regard to the draft EA were considered by the Regions and incorporated into the final version of the original EA (July 2009) as necessary.

Upon the submission of the original EA (July 2009) to the ministry for review and a decision, the GRT was provided with an opportunity to review the original EA

(July 2009) and to submit comments to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry from the GRT during the initial comment period on the original EA (July 2009) were forwarded to the Regions for a response. Summaries of the comments received, along with the Regions' responses are included in Table 1 of this Review. Copies of the submissions can also be found in Appendix B of this Review.

The GRT consultation process has been documented in the amended EA Record of Consultation, which provides a summary of the issues and concerns raised during the consultation process.

Public consultation

Consultation with interested members of the public was a key component of the Regions' consultation plan. The public, which includes the general public, communities, interest groups and property owners, were provided with several opportunities to participate in the EA process and to provide input. Public participation in the EA process was achieved in a variety of ways.

The majority of public consultation took place through public information sessions held in various municipalities within the EA study area. The public information sessions included both formal and informal presentations by the Regions that focused on aspects of the EA background, scope of the EA and activities associated with each milestone in the EA process. Representatives from the Region’s Waste Management Services Department together with members of the Regions' consultant team attended each of the sessions to answer questions and provide attendees an opportunity to obtain additional information.

To effectively provide information to the public on the EA process and opportunities for consultation, the Regions developed a communications strategy. Each municipality within the EA study area was provided with information on public information sessions, workshops and drop-in centres through the following activities:

• Public advisories
• Notices
• News releases
• Advertisements in major and local newspapers (including non-English publications)
• Advertisements on local radio stations prior to each community event
• Public service announcements
• Notifications via bus ads and ads in local movie thatres
• Updates on the EA project website

Public consultation was also undertaken through the establishment of a Joint Waste Management Group and a Site Liaison Committee that were made up of officials from both Regions and members of the public. The Joint Waste Management Group was formed very early in the EA process to provide advice and recommendations to the Regions. Once a recommended preferred site for the undertaking had been identified, a Site Liaison Committee was created to provide information to the public and feedback to Regions. Meetings of both committees were open to all residents and were advertised in newspapers well in advance of the meetings. The Joint Waste Management Group and a Site Liaison Committee allowed the Regions to gather feedback from a broad range of public interests across the communities within the EA study area in the preparation of the EA. Agendas, minutes and relevant presentations have been posted on the EA project website.

Interested members of the public were also provided with an opportunity to make delegations outside of the formal public consultation process at any time during the EA process. A number of delegations were received at Regional Councils and Committees. Copies of all delegations and presentations were made public, with copies circulated to Council and committee members, and posted on the respective Regional websites with minutes and agendas.

Over the course of the EA process, a contact list of those individuals and groups expressing interest in the EA was compiled and updated as the EA process proceeded. Interested members of the public were added to the list throughout the EA process. The list provided an ongoing means for the Regions to update the public on the EA process and to request comments. The current contact list is included as part of the Consultation Record and forms part of the EA.

Consultation with interested members of the public allowed the Regions to gather information covering a wide spectrum of interests for input into the EA planning process. The comments that were received in response to consultation with the public were considered by the Regions during the preparation of the original EA (July 2009) and the amended EA (November 2009).

Upon the submission of the original EA (July 2009) to the ministry for review and a decision, interested members of the public were provided with an opportunity to review the original EA (July 2009) and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the original EA (July 2009) itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the ministry from interested members of the public during the initial comment period on the original EA (July 2009) were forwarded to the Regions for a response. Summaries of the comments received, along with the Regions' responses are included in Table 2 of this Review.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to the EAA requirements that interested persons be consulted, the Crown and proponents must turn their minds to consultation with Aboriginal communities who may have aboriginal or treaty rights that could be affected by the proposed undertaking. This is because it is well established in law that the Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal communities where it is contemplating action that may adversely affect established or asserted aboriginal or treaty rights.

During the preparation of the EA, the Regions contacted both the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) and Indian and northrn Affairs Canada (INAC). The Regions continued the consultation process with those Aboriginal communities consulted on the ToR during the development of the EA, including:

• Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
• Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation
• Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
• Batchewana First Nation
• Chippewas of Beausoleil First Nation
• Caldwell First Nation
• Curve Lake First Nation
• Delaware First Nation (Moravian of the Thames)
• Mississauga of the New Credit First Nation
• Alderville First Nation
• Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte
• Hiawatha First Nation
• Huron-Wendat Nation
• Oneida Nation of the Thames
• Six Nations of the Grand River
• Wahta Mohawks

The Regions also contacted:

• Anishinabek Nation/Union of Ontario Indians
• Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians
• Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO)

Each of the above identified Aboriginal communities and organizations, were invited to participate at each consultation point in the EA process. The Regions provided the Aboriginal communities and organizations with all relevant EA materials, including draft reports, invitations to workshops, and invitations to participate in the review of the various draft EA reports. In addition, those Aboriginal communities and organizations with a potential interest in the undertaking were invited to participate in an information session specifically for the Aboriginal communities and organizations. The information session was held prior to the public information centres on May 12 and 19, 2009. A summary of the Regions' consultation process with Aboriginal communities and organizations can be found in the EA Record of Consultation. To date, no concerns were raised by the Aboriginal communities and organizations that were contacted by the Regions.

In addition, the above noted Aboriginal communities and organizations were provided with a copy of the EA documentation by this ministry. Please see Table 3 of this Review for a summary of the comments received from Aboriginal communities and organizations, and the Regions' responses to those comments.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The EAA requires that a proponent consult with interested persons during the preparation of an EA and report on the results of those consultations. Overall, the Regions have followed the consultation plan as set forthe in the requirements of the approved ToR. The Regions have also provided sufficient opportunities for the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities to participate and provide input during the preparation of the EA. The EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by the Regions to engage these groups during the EA process, and the EA clearly sets out the issues and concerns raised and how they were addressed.

The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA (November 2009) clearly documents the consultation methods used by the Regions to engage the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the original EA (July 2009). The ministry is also satisfied that the amendments to the original EA (July 2009) demonstrate how input from the public and the GRT assisted in the generation, evaluation and refinement of the amended EA (November 2009).

3.2 EA process

An EA is a planning process that requires a proponent to identify an existing problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity and evaluate the potential environmental effects of these alternatives. The conclusion of the planning process is the identification of a preferred alternative that will best address the existing problem or opportunity and therefore become the undertaking for which EA approval is sought.

The Durham and York Residual Waste Study EA process commenced following the approval of the ToR on March 31, 2006. The EA was undertaken in accordance with the approved ToR, which defined the framework for the EA. The purpose of the EA was to establish a long term sustainable and local waste disposal solution to manage the post diversion residual MSW generated by the Regions for the next 35 years.

The following is a brief summary of the EA process for the Durham and York Residual Waste Study Amended EA submitted to the ministry on November 27, 2009.

Alternatives to

At the start of the EA process, the Regions initiated an evaluation and assessment of “alternatives to” the problem identified in the EA. These “alternatives to” were developed within the context of identifying a specific waste management system rather than individual waste management components or technologies. A competitive municipal procurement process would be undertaken during the evaluation and comparison of “alternative methods” and used to identify and engage technology vendors to determine the preferred waste management system technology.

Waste management system alternatives were developed based on a combination of at-source diversion assumptions, reasonable alternatives for the treatment of the residual MSW, and landfill disposal of materials that remain after treatment. A landfill-only option was not considered as set forthe in the approved ToR, although it was recognized that each of the proposed alternatives would require landfill disposal capacity for process residues. Only those systems capable of managing the residual MSW remaining after at-source diversion were developed and evaluated. The waste management systems carried forward for evaluation and assessment included:

• Mechanical Treatment Systems (physical processes)
• Biological Treatment Systems (the use of microorganisms)
• Thermal Treatment Systems (combustion, gasification, pyrolisis)

Each ‘alternative to“ under consideration was subjected to an evaluation process to determine its applicability and suitability to the purpose of the undertaking as outlined in section 7 of the amended EA (November 2009). A seven step waste management system evaluation process was applied to formulate and then comparatively evaluate the “alternatives to&rsdquo;. The preferred “alternative to” would exhibit the preferred balance of advantages and disadvantages based on the priorities of the waste management system evaluation methodology.

The three waste management systems were evaluated to assess their potential to address the purpose of the undertaking and to identify their potential environmental effects. Each of the potential environmental effects identified was considered with respect to the availability of mitigation measures. The result was the identification of each waste management system’s “net effects”.

The “net effects” associated with each waste management system were then compared and a list of relative advantages and disadvantages associated with each waste management system was developed. The preferred waste management system was the system that offered the preferred balance of advantages and disadvantages.

The seven step evaluation process of “alternatives to” found that the preferred waste management system was thermal treatment. More specifically, the preferred “alternatives to” included:

• The establishment of a thermal treatment waste management facility with capacity to process the Regions' residual waste stream and to recover energy
• The removal of materials that may be sold to market from the ash/char residue
• The landfilling of any remaining process residues (bottom and fly ash)

The ministry is satisfied that the Regions have followed a logical and transparent decision-making process which has been clearly outlined in the EA. A study area for the EA was established to provide geographical and temporal context for the evaluation of “alternatives to”. A reasonable range of alternative solutions that would address the problem of providing for future waste management needs were evaluated. An evaluation methodology process was established to formulate and then comparatively evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each “alternative to”. The conclusion of the evaluation process has identified a preferred alternative that will best address the existing problem or opportunity and therefore become the undertaking for which EA approval is sought.

Alternative methods

Having selected thermal treatment as the preferred “alternative to”, the Regions initiated an evaluation and assessment of “alternative methods” to locate a preferred site upon which to locate a thermal treatment waste management facility. A seven step site evaluation process was applied to formulate and then comparatively evaluate the alternative sites. The preferred site would exhibit the preferred balance of advantages and disadvantages based on the priorities of the site evaluation process.

In order to undertake the comparative evaluation of sites without having first identified the technology that would eventually be used in the preferred thermal treatment waste management system, a number of assumptions were made with respect to the final aspects of the design and operation of the facility. The municipal procurement process to identify the thermal treatment technology would then be used to carry forward these assumptions as requirements for the design and operation of the facility, and in turn validate the assumptions used in the evaluation of “alternative methods”. Accordingly, the Regions would not have to go back, following the identification of the thermal treatment technology, to reassess the accuracy of the original site evaluation process.

Each alternative site was evaluated using a set of criteria that was developed by the Regions to be relevant, clear and logical. The alternative sites were evaluated based on the advantages and disadvantages of potential environmental effects and were presented in a traceable manner. The evaluation was built upon baseline data and existing conditions in the EA study area. The Regions' evaluation was completed using criteria in the following categories:

• Public health and Safety and the Natural Environment
• Social/Cultural Considerations
• Economic/Financial Considerations
• Technical Considerations
• Legal Considerations

The starting point for the site evaluation methodology process was to identify lands within the EA study area that consisted of features and land uses considered suitable for the establishment of a thermal treatment facility. The result was the identification of suitable areas, such as designated industrial lands, and the exclusion of lands in unsuitable areas, such as significant natural features, agricultural lands and existing residential areas. Site specific constraints were then applied to these suitable areas to identify potential siting opportunities that would meet the minimum site size requirements, ancillary uses, and configuration requirements.

The list of sites was further evaluated to compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of each site. Sites were deemed unsuitable if they exhibited significant technical, social and/or environmental disadvantages relative to other sites on the list. Sites that passed through this evaluation were made part of a list of five sites that were carried forward for a more extensive and comparative evaluation.

A qualitative methodology was then applied to the list of five sites to identify a preferred site that exhibited the best balance of advantages and disadvantages based on the priorities of the Regions' site evaluation process as outlined in section 8 of the amended EA (November 2009). The seven step evaluation methodology process found that the preferred site on which to locate the proposed thermal treatment waste management system was Clarington 01, located in the municipality of Clarington south of Highway 401 on the west side of Osborne Road and north of the CN Rail corridor.

The ministry is satisfied that the Regions followed a logical and transparent decision making process that was clearly outlined in the EA. A site evaluation process was established to comparatively evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative site. The conclusion of the evaluation process has identified a recommended preferred site upon which to locate a thermal treatment waste management facility.

Municipal procurement process

During the comparative evaluation of “alternative methods” to identify a recommended preferred site, the Regions initiated a municipal procurement process to identify a vendor that would ultimately provide the specific thermal treatment technology to be used in the preferred waste management system. To engage qualified vendors capable of designing, constructing and operating a thermal treatment waste management facility, a two stage competitive process was carried out involving a Request for Qualification (RFQ) followed by a Request for Proposal (RFP).

During the first stage of the procurement process, the Regions solicited qualifications from technology vendors through the issuance of a RFQ. The qualifications submitted were used to identify those vendors qualified to participate in the second stage of the process. The RFQ was issued in July 2007 and closed in October 2007.

Following the completion of the RFQ stage, technology vendors qualified to participate in the RFQ process were invited to submit detailed proposals for the design, construction and operation of a thermal treatment waste management facility. The objective of the RFP process was to identify a preferred vendor technology based on the qualitative assessment and comparison of the advantages of each vendor proposal relative to the EA procurement process evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria were developed to ensure that the preferred vendor technology selected could be considered “best in class” and included:

• Technical Considerations (including environmental considerations)
• Cost and Commercial Considerations
• Project Delivery Considerations (including impact management commitments)

At the conclusion of the RFP qualitative assessment and comparison process, the preferred vendor technology was determined based on the vendor proposal exhibiting the preferred balance of advantages. The RFP was issued on August 22, 2008 and closed February 18, 2009.

Based on the conclusions of the RFP process Covanta Energy Corporation was selected by the Regions as the technology vendor to design, construct and operate the proposed thermal treatment waste management facility on the Clarington 01 site.

Site specific studies

Having identified a recommended preferred site and technology vendor, several studies and investigations were carried out to determine the potential effects, impact management measures and net effects of implementing the proposed undertaking, and to identify potential mitigation measures. The following site specific studies and investigations were carried out:

• Air Quality Assessment
• Site Specific Human health and Ecological Risk Assessment
• Natural Environment Impact Assessment
• Acoustic Assessment
• Traffic Assessment
• Visual Assessment
• Economic Assessment
• Social/Cultural Assessment
• Geotechnical Investigation
• Surface Water and Groundwater Assessment
• Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment and Built Heritage
• Facility Energy and Life Cycle Assessment

The site specific studies and investigations have been summarized in the EA and identify the potential effects and proposed impact management measures associated with the construction and operation of the proposed undertaking on the recommended preferred site.

3.2.1 Key issues

Key issues regarding the EA process undertaken by the Regions were identified during the review and comment period on the original EA (July 2009), the amended EA (November 2009) and the addendum to section 9.2 of the amended EA (December 2009). The issues identified during the review of the original EA (November 2009) were considered by the Regions during the preparation of the amended EA (July 2009) and addendum to section 9.2 of the amended EA (December 2009). The EA amendments include the addition of information and clarification to address the concerns raised.

The following is an overview of the key comments and concerns that were identified regarding the Regions' EA process.

Information on the municipal procurement process

During the EA process interested members of the public and the GRT expressed concerns with the lack of information being provided by the Regions on the municipal procurement process. The Regions acknowledge that during the preparation of the EA every effort was made to include as much information as possible about the municipal procurement process. There are, however, certain factors which have limited the Regions ability to disclose all information related to the procurement process. Disclosure of detailed information that was not used during the comparison and evaluation of vendor submissions but included in the vendor submissions could place the finalization of the procurement process in jeopardy.

The ministry has asked the Regions whether or not the detailed information compiled during the procurement process will be made available for review upon the finalization of the procurement process. The ministry’s expectation is that the Regions should provide direction on whether or not this information will be made available, and if so, when and how the information can be obtained.

The Regions have provided a written response to the ministry in which they have committed to making available information on the procurement process following the completion of the procurement process. The Regions will make the information available upon request and in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The ministry is satisfied has that the commitment to provide the above mentioned additional information addresses the question as to whether or not the detailed information compiled during the procurement process will be made available for review upon the finalization of the procurement process. The ministry’s formal comments submitted on the amended EA (November 2009) about the release of information on the municipal procurement process are included in Appendix B of this Review. The responses by the Regions to the concerns raised by the ministry are included in Table 1 of this Review. Copies of the submissions can also be found in Appendix B of this Review.

Compliance with the EA terms of reference

During the review of the original EA (July 2009), interested members of the public raised concerns that the original EA (July 2009) was not being prepared in accordance with the provisions of the approved ToR. In particular, it was suggested that the municipal procurement process was not completed prior to the conclusion of the evaluation of “alternative methods”.

It was originally envisioned in the ToR that the municipal procurement process used to select the preferred waste management system would be completed prior to the completion of the evaluation of “alternative methods”. The competitive process would have potential technology vendors of thermal treatment technologies submit proposals to build and operate the preferred waste management system as determined by the evaluation and comparison of “alternatives to”. The potential technology vendors would also be provided an opportunity to submit a site along with their proposal for consideration.

The Regions determined that the submission of a site and the submission of a technology should be completed as two entirely separate processes. Consideration of both potential vendor sites and technologies as part of the same competitive process was considered to represent an unfair advantage to those vendors offering both a site and technology versus only those vendors offering a technology. By separating the competitive process from the siting process the Regions would be able to ensure a more “fair” process for those involved. In doing so, however, the Regions would be required to complete the siting activities in advance of the competitive process.

This modification was reviewed by the ministry in January 2008 at the request of the Regions. Upon careful review of the approved ToR and provisions of the EAA, the ministry concluded that the modification did not deviate from the requirements of the approved ToR to such an extent that the EA could not be prepared in accordance with it. The Regions' formal submission requesting consultation on the modification to the ToR and the ministry’s response are included in Appendix C of this Review.

3.2.2 Conclusion

The ministry is satisfied with the Regions' decision making process. The amended EA (November 2009) contains an explanation of the problem and opportunities that prompted the EA study and the amended EA (November 2009) demonstrates, in a logical and transparent process, why and how the preferred undertaking was selected.

The Regions have evaluated a sufficient range of alternatives using criteria that considered the EAA's broad definition of the environment (e.g. including natural, socio-economic, cultural and agricultural environments). The amended EA (November 2009) provides a description of the potentially affected environment in the EA study area and identifies the elements of the environment that may be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the alternatives.

The Regions have compared and evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking based on the potential environmental effects for the “alternatives to” the undertaking, the “alternative methods” of carrying out the undertaking and the proposed undertaking. The amended EA (November 2009) also provides a description of the mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects.

A summary of the key issues identified with the Regions' EA process that were during the comment period on the original EA (July 2009) and the amended EA (November 2009), including Regions' responses, can be found in Tables 1 to 3 of this Review.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is clearly described in section 10 of the amended EA (November 2009) documentation (see also section 2 of this Review), and was evaluated based on the advantages and disadvantages to the environment. The ministry is satisfied that a broad definition of the environment was used in order to evaluate all potential impacts. This definition included the natural environment, the socio-economic environment, and the cultural environment, as well as public health and safety.

3.3.1 Key issues

Key issues about the proposed undertaking were identified during the review and comment period on the original EA (July 2009) and the amended EA (November 2009). The issues identified during the review of the original EA (November 2009) were considered by the Regions during the preparation of the amended EA (July 2009). The EA amendments include the addition of information and clarification to address the concerns raised during the comment period on the original EA (July 2009).

The following is an overview of the comments and concerns raised by interested members of the public and the GRT during the comment period on the original EA (July 2009), and comments raised by the GRT during the comment period on the amended EA (July 2009).

A complete summary of all comments received during the original EA (July 2009) comment period, including the Region’s responses, can be found in Tables 1, 2 and 3. The GRT submissions received during the initial comment period of the original EA (July 2009) can be found in Appendix B.

Potential impacts to human health

Interested members of the public raised concerns about the potential impacts to human health the proposed facility may have on area residents. The Regions carried out a site specific Air Quality Assessment and a site specific Human health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) and submitted these assessments as part of the original EA (July 2009).

The Air Quality Assessment and the HHERA considered air quality issues and the potential human health effects during the construction and operation of the facility. The results of the Air Quality Assessment and HHERA indicated that the air emissions produced by the facility are predicted to meet applicable ministry air quality criteria and would meet or be below the current air contaminant limits placed on municipal waste incinerators by the ministry.

Ministry technical reviewers have reviewed the Air Quality Assessment and HHERA and are satisfied with the conclusions of the Air Quality Assessment and the HHERA assessments.

The ministry is also satisfied that additional studies and site specific analysis, deemed necessary by the ministry in support of issuing any future approvals under Section 9 of the EPA should the undertaking be approved, will further support the conclusions of the Air Quality Assessment and HHERA and ensure consistency with ministry regulatory requirements.

Waste diversion

During the review of the original EA (July 2009), interested members of the public raised concerns about the impacts the proposed facility may have on waste diversion and the Regions' commitments to increase diversion rates.

Initiatives including recycling, composting and diversion of household hazardous waste were investigated during the EA process. although these initiatives do not form part of the undertaking for which approval is being sought, they are directly related to the design of the facility. Based on the Regions' diversion initiatives the proposed thermal treatment facility is being designed to handle the Regions' residual waste only after 65% diversion has already been achieved. The Regions have also acknowledged that the diversion rate will have to increase to even higher rates to offset the effects of population growth over the 35 year planning period.

In order to improve current diversion rates, the Regions have committed to focus on increasing the capture rates of divertible materials and increasing the public participation in diversion programs. The Regions have also committed to continue to invest in, encourage and promote diversion programs so that improved diversion targets can be met and to reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal at the proposed facility.

The ministry is supportive of the Regions diversions efforts and commitments. Through efforts to reduce and divert waste from final disposal the Regions have illustrated the foresight necessary to ensure that the proposed long term waste management plan is successful.

Potential traffic impacts

During the review of original EA (July 2009) interested members of the public raised concerns about the potential impacts of increased truck traffic on local traffic and roads. The amended EA (November 2009) includes a traffic assessment study that has concluded that the operations at the facility will result in minimal disruption to the local traffic network.

The traffic assessment study identified that during operation, the facility is expected to generate up to 34 daily truck trips. It is anticipated that operations at the facility will generate 18 trucks (inbound and outbound) and 22 cars during peak hours of operation. The traffic assessment study has identified that road and pavement improvements to the south Service Road and Osborne Road may be required to accommodate construction and operational vehicles. The Regions have therefore committed to pavement testing along the haul route to confirm if road reconstruction and pavement improvements are required prior to construction if the undertaking is approved. No other mitigation will be required to address facility related traffic during construction or operations.

The ministry is satisfied that the conclusions of the truck traffic assessment and commitments based on its conclusions will address the concerns related to truck traffic resulting from the operation of the proposed thermal treatment facility.

Odour

In response to concerns raised by the public and the GRT on the original EA (July 2009) with respect to the site specific Air Quality Assessment, the Regions have committed to carrying out additional site specific analysis. This commitment will be achieved by providing additional information to support seeking future approvals under Section 9 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), if the undertaking is approved. However, it has been noted in the review of the amended EA (November 2009) that the proposed commitments do not address some of the concerns raised with respect to odour.

The site specific studies in the amended EA (November 2009) do not adequately address the potential impacts related to odour emission resulting from the operation of the proposed thermal treatment facility. In order to ensure that points of odour emissions are identified and mitigated, the ministry will require that an odour impact assessment be undertaken. This should include, but not be limited to, the preparation of an odour emissions inventory prepared in accordance with Ontario Regulation 419/05, Air Pollution—Local Air Quality and an Odour Management Plan. The odour impact assessment should identify any adverse odour impacts that are likely to occur during operation and commitments for the implementation of monitoring and mitigation measures.

The Regions have provided a written response to the ministry in which they have committed to undertake an odour impact assessment. The assessment will be carried out as part of the supporting information provided for approvals under Section 9 of EPA if the undertaking is approved.

The ministry is satisfied that the commitment to provide the above mentioned additional information will address the concerns related to odour emission resulting from the operation of the proposed thermal treatment facility.

Noise

An Acoustic Assessment Technical Study was carried out as part of the evaluation of the preferred undertaking and included in the amended EA (November 2009). The purpose of the study was to identify any potential noise impacts associated with the proposed undertaking and recommend mitigation measures. The study applied conservative assumptions to ensure that the worst case scenarios were evaluated in the assessment of the facility’s noise impact. This was done because at the time of the study there were no details available on the specific design of the facility which could be used to identify sources of noise generation. The study therefore included a qualitative assessment of potential noise impacts and the recommended mitigation measures were based on the modelling of the noise impact assumptions.

Ministry technical reviewers have raised concerns that the assumptions used in the Acoustic Assessment Technical Study may not accurately reflect the potential noise impacts of the facility. In order to ensure that that potential noise impacts are accurately identified, the ministry will require that an Acoustic Audit be carried out, should the undertaking be approved, once the facility is operational. The acoustic audit will include, but not be limited to, the completion of a Noise Abatement Action Plan to ensure that the applicable noise criteria are met or mitigated at the offsite receptors.

The Regions have provided a written response to ministry in which they have committed to undertake an Acoustic Audit during the EPA approvals process, should the undertaking be approved. The ministry is satisfied that the above mentioned commitment address the concerns raised.

Landfill capacity for process residuals

The amended EA (November 2009) identifies that existing landfill capacity or the siting of new landfill capacity, to manage the process residual materials resulting from the thermal treatment of waste, is outside the scope of the EA study. However, the amended EA (November 2009) acknowledges that each of the processing system alternatives carried forward for comparison and evaluation will require landfill disposal capacity for process residuals. Members of the public and the GRT have raised concerns with respect to how process residuals will ultimately be disposed.

In order to ensure that process residuals are disposed of properly, the ministry requested that the Regions identify the approved landfill or site where the process residuals will ultimately be disposed. This is to ensure that process residuals are disposed of at a licensed facility that is designed and designated to receive the process residuals generated by the facility. It will also ensure that should approval be given to the undertaking, the implementation and operation of the undertaking will not be delayed or impeded by the process to identify or site an approved landfill to receive the process residuals.

The Regions have provided a written response to ministry in which they have acknowledged the requirement for the disposal of process residuals. The response describes the Regions' approach to the management of process residuals. The Regions intend to utilize the Republic’s Pine Avenue Landfill in Niagara Falls, New York, USA as the primary site for ash management and the Modern Landfill in Model City, New York, USA as a backup should it be required. The Regions have also committed to continuing their ongoing investigation of more local landfill alternatives and alternative non-landfill uses for the process residues should the undertaking be apporved. The ministry is satisfied that the proposed residual disposal approach addresses the concerns raised.

Future expansion of facility capacity

The amended EA (November 2009) outlines that at some point in the 35 year planning period there may be a need to expand the facility in order to accommodate additional post diversion MSW. The EA identifies that the need to undertake an expansion of the facility will be considered through a review of the Regions' integrated waste management system and a re-determination of the Regions' long term disposal capacity needs.

Members of the public and the GRT have raised concerns that it is not clear as to how and when the need for future expansion of the facility will be determined. The amended EA (November 2009) does not describe the processes and protocols that will be applied to identify the need for expansion. In order to ensure that the need for future expansion is properly and adequately identified, the ministry required that the Regions prepare a detailed description of the process that will be followed to identify the need for expansion.

The Regions have provided a written response to the ministry in which they have identified the process that will be followed to determine the need for expansion. The Regions have committed to the thorough review of existing waste management systems to determine the need for expansion. The review will include the identification of any potential short comings that may exist in the current waste management systems, such as the availability of long term processing capacity for recyclable or organic material and development of additional strategies to increase waste diversion. The review will examine ways to maximize the use of existing approved disposal capacity and the consideration of any additional infrastructure improvements to increase diversion performance. The waste management system review will also examine the current waste systems' performance and projected waste management needs of the Regions. This will be determined by obtaining waste generation data from the Regions and analyzing the data to determine performance.

In addition, per capita waste generation estimates and population projections would be determined to project the amount and composition of waste the Regions will need to manage during the planning period. This estimate will then be used to project the long-term waste disposal capacity requirements of the Regions. The Regions anticipate the review and update of the Integrated Waste Management Master Plans at least once every five years.

The ministry is satisfied that the proposed process to determine the need for facility expansion and the above mentioned commitments address the concerns raised. Any expansion of the facility beyond the 140,000 tonnes per year capacity for which approval is currently being sought will be considered to be a new undertaking. Any future expansion of the facility will therefore be subject to the applicable approval requirements under the EAA and any associated regulations.

Waste management contingency plan

The amended EA (November 2009) includes a brief overview of a contingency plan to address the waste management needs of the Regions during facility construction, disruptions to operations, or in the event that the EA could be refused. Should operations at the facility cease, the amended EA (November 2009) states that waste will be stored on site until operations resume or that an alternative disposal site will be utilized for short term management needs.

Members of the public and the GRT have raised concerns that the level of detail in the description of the facility contingency plan is not sufficient nor is it apparent if the plan is feasible. In order to address the lack of detail about the facility contingency plan, the ministry’s comments on the amended EA (November 2009) requested that the Regions prepare a more detailed contingency plan to account for both short term and long term disruptions to operations. The plan was to include the identification of alternative disposal capacity, the legislative requirements or contact agreements associated with the use of any alternative disposal capacity, how waste collection and transfer may be modified, and any notification procedures. The plan was to address the possibility that the amended EA (November 2009) could be refused.

The Regions have provided a written response to the ministry in which they have outlined a framework for a contingency plan to address waste management needs during facility construction, disruptions to operations, and in the event that the amended EA (November 2009) could be refused. A formal plan will be developed during the EPA approvals process, should the undertaking be approved. Each Region has established an individual waste management contingency plan. Durham Region has entered into an agreement with Modern Landfill Incorporated, located in Niagara County Lewiston, New York, USA. The terms of the agreement are for a three year period commencing January 1, 2011. The agreement also includes an option to extend the agreement for two additional one year periods if necessary. York Region will continue its agreement with the City of Toronto’s Greenlane Landfill, in London Ontario.

In the event that operations at the facility are disrupted, waste will be stored in the facility tipping building for up to a period of four days. Should the operational disruption continue for a period greater than four days, waste will be hauled by Covanta, the facility operator, to one of three permitted disposal sites under the charge of the operator in the USA. Operation reports will be prepared and submitted during the EPA approvals process to provide the detailed information on the procedures for managing and redirecting waste during the use of waste management contingency plans.

Should this amended EA (November 2009) be refused, the Regions will enter into discussions with the ministry to determine an alternative approach to addressing their long term waste management needs. In the meantime, the waste management contingency plans to address waste management needs during facility construction will be continued until a new alternative is identified.

The ministry is satisfied that the waste management contingency plan proposed by the Regions and the above mentioned commitments address the concerns raised.

Volatile organic compound emissions

In response to the concerns raised in the comments by the public and the GRT on the original EA (July 2009) with respect to the site specific Air Quality Assessment, the Regions have committed to carrying out additional site specific analysis. This commitment will be achieved by providing additional information to support seeking future approvals under Section 9 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). However, members of the public and the GRT have raised concerns that the amended EA (November 2009) does not include a sufficient level of information on Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) associated with the operation of the proposed facility.

The ministry has expressed concern that the amended EA (November 2009) identifies that no readily available VOC emission data applicable to the proposed facility was noted. It is the ministry’s expectation that the Regions provide VOC emissions testing as part of the undertaking’s stack testing commitments.

The Regions have provided a written response to ministry in which they have committed to determining the list of contaminants that will be stack tested in conjunction with the ministry during the EPA Certificate of Approval process, should the undertaking be approved. The Regions anticipate that any stack testing requirements will be included in the terms and conditions associated with the EPA approvals process. The ministry is satisfied that the proposed above mentioned commitments address the concerns raised.

3.3.2 Conclusion

The ministry is satisfied that the concerns raised by interested members of the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities during the original EA (July 2009) agency and public comment period and the GRT comment period on the amended EA (November 2009) have been addressed. The ministry is satisfied with the Regions' proposed mitigation measures to ensure that any potential impacts are appropriately managed. The ministry is also satisfied that potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can be managed through the commitments made in the amended EA (November 2009) and in response to the concerned raised during the EA process.

Summary of the ministry review

This Review explains the ministry’s evaluation of the Durham and York Residual Waste Study EA (July 2009) and amended EA (November 2009). The Review has concluded that the Regions have prepared the amended EA (November 2009) in accordance with the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR. The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA (November 2009) provides sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking for which approval is being sought.

The amended EA (November 2009) has assessed and evaluated a sufficient number of alternatives to arrive at a preferred undertaking. The ministry is satisfied that the evaluation of alternatives and the preferred undertaking assessed a reasonable range of potential environmental effects. The ministry is also satisfied that the amended EA (November 2009) provides sufficient detail on the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures to address any potential negative environmental effects.

The amended EA (November 2009) identifies how the Regions have provided sufficient time and opportunities for the GRT, interested members of the public and Aboriginal communities to comment during the EA process. The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA (November 2009) clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by the Regions to engage these groups during the EA process. The amended EA (November 2009) clearly sets out the issues and concerns raised and how they have been addressed. The Regions consultation methods were found to be in accordance with the requirements of the ToR.

The Review has also concluded a number of outstanding concerns remain that must be considered when making a decision to proceed with the undertaking. However, these issues can be addressed through commitments made in the amended EA (November 2009) and during the Review process. Prior to the Minister making a decision on whether or not to approve the proposed undertaking, the ministry will consider whether any commitments made in the amended EA and during the Review process will be addressed through proposed conditions of EA approval.

What happens now

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested persons, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the original EA (July 2009), amended EA (November 2009), the addendum to Section 9.2 of the amended EA (December 2009) or the ministry Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the amended EA (November 2009), which includes the addendum to section 9.2 of the amended EA (December 2009) to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed.

At the end of the Review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the amended EA (November 2009) has been prepared in accordance with the ToR and the requirements of the EAA and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, the amended EA (November 2009), the Review, the comments submitted during on the original EA (July 2009), the amended EA (November 2009) and the Review comment periods and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

• Give approval to proceed with the undertaking
• Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
• Refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer any outstanding matters to mediation or refer either part of or the entire amended EA (November 2009) to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, the Regions will still require other legislative permits and approvals to design, construct and operate the proposed undertaking. Such permits and approvals cannot be issued prior to EAA approval, unless they are required for the acquisition of property or rights in property, feasibility studies, research or the establishment of a reserve fund or some other financing mechanism in connection with the undertaking.

The Region has committed to obtain all other approvals and regulatory permits that may be required. Section 15 of the EA outlines the additional approvals that may be required to design and construct the proposed undertaking. These approvals include:

• Ministry of the Environment’s Section 53, Ontario Water Resources Act
• Ministry of the Environment’s Section 34, Ontario Water Resources Act
• Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Protection Act Section 9—Air and Noise
• Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Protection Act Section 27—Waste
• Land zoning requirements in accordance with the Planning Act
• Municipal Building and Infrastructure Permits
• Tree Removal Permits
• Noise by-law exemptions
• Road Occupancy Permits
• Road closure by-laws
• Temporary construction access permits
• Municipal sign by-laws
• Canada–U.S. Air Quality Agreement
• Ontario Power Authority Power Purchase Agreement

The above list is not all inclusive and other approvals may be required as the project proceeds.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

The amended EA (November 2009) identifies a process to address minor and major changes to the undertaking if approval is granted. Any proposed change to the undertaking would have to be considered in the context of the EAA and Ontario Regulation 101/07 (Waste Management Projects) and any environmental assessment requirements met before any change to the undertaking can be implemented.

Public record locations

The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario

• Tel: 416-314-8001
• Toll-free: 1-800-461-6290
• Fax: 416-314-8452

The Review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations:

Ministry of the Environment

Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

• Tel: 416-314-8001

Central Region Office
5775 Yonge Street, 8^th floor
north York, Ontario
M2M 4J1

• Tel: 416-326-6700

York-Durham District Office
230 Westney Road south, 5^th floor
Ajax, Ontario
L1S 7J5

• Tel: 905-427-5600

The Regional Municipality of Durham Clerk’s Department
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 6A3

• Tel: 905-668-7711

The Regional Municipality of York Clerk’s Department
17250 Yonge Street, 4^th floor
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 6Z1

• Toll-free: 1-877-464-9675

All Municipalities' Clerk’s Departments in the Region of Durham and all public libraries in the Regions of Durham and York.

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending April 2, 2010 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Agathea Garcia-Wright, Director
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

• Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Durham and York Residual Waste Study Amended Environmental Assessment
Attention: Gavin Battarino, Project Officer

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference requirements of the environmental assessment

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix A.

Appendix B: Submissions received during initial comment period

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix B.