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 Review was June 30, 2014. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the EA and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

The County of northumberland (County)

What

Ministry review of an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes:

  • An expansion of the existing landfill site through the development of a new landfill footprint on lands owned or optioned by the County.
  • The County is seeking approval for an expansion of 500,000 cubic metres of residual solid, non-hazardous waste (including final cover).

When

EA submitted: September 6, 2013.
Comment period: September 7 to October 25, 2013.
Ministry review comment period: July 30 to September 3, 2014

Where

The proposed new landfill footprint is located in the County of northumberland, approximately six kilometres (km) north of the community of Brighton, within the Municipality of Brighton. The total footprint area of the proposed expanded landfill will be 16.2 hectares, 2.8 hectares larger than the existing area.

Why

The County is seeking to provide additional waste disposal capacity of solid non-hazardous waste to the Brighton Landfill by expanding the current landfill footprint to allow the County to continue to operate the landfill through the year 2023.

Conclusions

The ministry Review concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and contained sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

Environmental assessment process

Environmental assessment (EA) is a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the 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 of the Environment and Climate Change’s (MOECC) 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 environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of Reference

Preparing an EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the MOECC for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On January 28, 2011, the County of northumberland (County) submitted the Brighton Landfill Expansion ToR to the MOECC for approval. The ToR stated that the EA would be prepared in accordance with Section 6(2)(c) of the EAA. The ToR established the rationale for expanding the existing landfill.

The ToR outlined the process the County would follow to assess alternative methods for carrying out the proposed undertaking; to assess environmental effects and provide mitigation measures and to consult with the public, government agencies and Aboriginal communities 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 27, 2011. During this time all interested persons, government agencies and Aboriginal communities could review and provide comments about the proposed ToR to the MOECC for consideration. Comments were received from the Ministry of the Environment, the Municipality of Brighton, the Lower Trent Conservation Authority, the Brighton Landfill Liaison Committee (BLLC), and members of the public. The County decided to amend the ToR to incorporate comments received by agencies and the public, and included such items as commitments to meet all applicable regulations in regards to dust/odour emission controls; and to obtain input from the Ministry of the Environment technical support section for possible monitoring requirements. An amended ToR was submitted to the MOECC on March 14, 2011.

The Minister approved the Brighton Landfill Expansion ToR on April 20, 2011.

1.2 Environmental assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the MOECC for review and decision.

On September 16, 2013, the County submitted its EA titled Proposed Expansion of the Brighton Landfill. The County is seeking approval for 500,000 cubic metres (m3) in additional waste disposal capacity for solid non-hazardous waste in the province of Ontario. The EA comment period ended on October 25, 2013.

The EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. The public and Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the MOECC. All comments received by the MOECC are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the EA undertaking.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the MOECC to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the Ministry Review (Review). The Review is the MOECC's evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to document the MOECC’s findings about whether or not the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the EAA and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA 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, agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

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 Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered by the County. During the Review comment period, anyone may submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone may request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing may only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A Notice of Completion of the Review has been published in the following local newspapers indicating that the Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period:

  • The Independent northumberland News
  • The Independent
  • northumberland Today

Copies of the Review and the EA have been placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and identified Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period have also received copies of the Review.

The proposed undertaking

Background

The County owns and operates the Brighton Landfill located in the Municipality of Brighton, County of northumberland, Ontario, west of County Road 26 and approximately six kilometres (km) north of the community of Brighton. The existing Brighton Landfill is defined in Environmental Compliance Approval A311104 as a: 13.4 hectare waste disposal site (landfill) and a municipal hazardous or special waste and waste electrical and electronic equipment depot, including the buffer lands, with a total area of 20.5 hectares, located on Lots 31 and 32, Concession 2, in the Municipality of Brighton.

Landfill operations began in 1975 and at the time was jointly owned by three municipalities: the former Town and Township of Brighton and the Township of Murray. When the County assumed responsibility of the landfill in 1991, it became licensed to receive waste from the entire County. The County also operates another landfill in the area; i.e. the Seymour Landfill, which reached its capacity in the latter part of 2013, and is now operated strictly as a Waste Transfer Station. As the Seymour Landfill has now reached its capacity, the Brighton Landfill remains the only facility to accept waste in the entire County. As a result, the Brighton Landfill expects to reach its approved capacity of 761,000 m3 by the year 2016.

With regards to the study area, the areas adjacent to the landfill site are predominantly for agriculture or rural residential land use purposes and as natural areas. Brighton Provincial Wildlife Area is located approximately 1.5 km east of the Site, which is a 392 hectare section of Crown land. In addition, a naturally intermittent creek (an unnamed tributary to Proctor Creek) lies on the southrn edge of the site-vicinity study area. There are no other natural features within the Project study area. The nearest private residence/receptor is located approximately 200 metres (m) from the south-east landfill property boundary.

The Brighton Landfill was licensed as and continues to operate as a predominately natural attenuation site, which means that very few or no engineering measures are used to contain and manage leachate (with the exception of the engineered liners that were implemented in 2007- see below). The County manages and collects non-hazardous municipal solid waste and recyclable materials for all residential, industrial, commercial and institutional sources in the county (with the exception of one Ward) and also provides collection services for some commercial establishments.

In 2009 the County received and managed a total of 52,444 tonnes of waste materials from residential, industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, of which 37 percent was diverted from landfill disposal through various diversion programs (blue box recycling; leaf and yard waste composting; tire, scrap metal and drywall recycling, etc.). The remaining approximately 34,000 tonnes of waste was disposed at the two operating landfills within the county. Specifically, the Brighton and Seymour sites received 23,000 and 10,000 tonnes, respectively, and an additional 1,000 tonnes was diverted from landfill through other programs. The County has estimated its future annual solid waste disposal requirements from 2010 to 2023, including a projected 3 percent increase in filling rate, to be approximately 500,000 m3 of additional landfill capacity.

The County also operates and maintains one waste transfer station, one material recovery facility, three compost facilities for leaf and yard waste, four household hazardous waste depots, and seven closed landfills.

The site is situated within a drumlinized glacial till plain with two drumlin ridges dominating the topography. The upper layer consists of sandy silt to silty sand. The water table exists within this upper layer. The site is underlain by 80 metres (m) of thick overburden over limestone bedrock. within the overburden there are low permeability layers that significantly slow downward movement of groundwater to the bedrock. Shallow groundwater flow in the upper layer mirrors the drumlin ridge topography and is affected by precipitation events, flowing from the upper portion of the ridge crests toward the lower lying areas. Once in the lower lying areas, the shallow groundwater flows eastward. The groundwater level in the deeper aquifer is lower than that in the upper layer due to hydraulic separation created by the fine grained till; groundwater flow in the lower layer is to the north and unaffected by the drumlins. Leachate (i.e. the liquid that passes through the waste which may contain harmful and potentially hazardous material) has been reported within the waste in the landfill. This is due to the historical use of fine grained soil as daily cover.

In 2005 groundwater monitoring at the site identified that landfill leachate had affected shallow groundwater quality to the east of the site. The County obtained additional land to the east to serve as a Contaminant Attenuation Zone (CAZ), which is a buffer zone around a landfill that prevents contamination of groundwater by wastes, to conform to the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOECC) Guideline B-7 (Reasonable Use Guideline). The County also determined that it wanted to proactively upgrade environmental protection measures at the site to provide a greater level of protection for off-site groundwater from potential contamination.

The County worked with the Brighton Landfill Liaison Committee (BLLC), a committee that was established in the early 2000s to consult with members of the community and local officials about issues and operations at the Brighton Landfill, to develop site-specific improvement objectives. The potential site improvements were presented to the public in a Public Information Centre in September 2006. The public indicated its support for the upgrades to groundwater protection measures. The County submitted a design and operations (D&O) plan to the MOECC in 2006 for review and approval.

The D&O plan proposed to excavate and mine existing waste in the old cell area, located in the east and south parts of the site, and construct a low permeability liner and leachate collection system in a new cell area. Existing waste would be separated for the purposes of diverting a portion from the landfill, used as daily cover or for off-site uses. All residual excavated waste and new incoming waste would be placed in the newly constructed lined cells.

Implementation of the D&O plan began in 2007 with the construction of the new landfill cells with engineered liners. However, in September 2008 the County conducted detailed technical and economic reviews of the D&O plan and identified that the mining plan was not feasible due to the limitations of the processing efficiency of the mining activities and the composition of the soil at the site. As a result, the County ceased the landfill mining activities, however, normal waste disposal operations are ongoing and waste is being placed in the constructed engineered liners.

The County, recognizing that its assumption of having capacity at the Brighton Landfill through 2023 was not able to be realized through the mining approach, commenced the EA process to meet its future disposal needs through expansion.

Description of the proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is for the expansion of the landfill footprint to the existing Brighton Landfill in the Municipality of Brighton. Specifically, the County is seeking approval for:

  • An expansion of 500,000 cubic metres (m3) in landfill capacity (for a total of 1,300,000 m3) of solid non-hazardous waste, including final cover;
  • The continued use of Cobourg’s No. 2 (Lucas Point) Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) for the treatment of the collected leachate.

The County has identified the purpose of the undertaking as the need to provide additional waste disposal capacity as the landfill’s current capacity will be reached by 2015/2016. The County estimates that approximately 500,000 m3of additional landfill capacity (1,300,000 m3 total) is required to manage its non-hazardous municipal solid waste to 2023. As part of the plan to increase disposal capacity, the County has committed to assess site enhancements including groundwater protection measures.

The Project involves a small lateral expansion along the east and a larger expansion to the west and north sides, while still maintaining a 40 m buffer between the waste limits and existing west and north property boundaries. Approximately 107,750 m3 of soil would need to be excavated to construct this expansion. This would result in an increase in airspace of approximately 524,350 m3 and increase the existing waste footprint design by approximately 2.8 hectares.

In addition, the EA assessed a number of alternatives for leachate treatment. As the EA study concluded that leachates may continue to pose an issue to groundwater quality in the area, treatment of landfill leachate was included in this EA study. Alternatives included the continued use of Lucas Point WPCP, the use other facilities or treatment on site. The EA determined that the continued use of Lucas Point WPCP would be preferred, as it would have capacity to receive the expected volume of leachate through 2023 and post-closure. Leachate from the disposal cells underlain by an engineered liner and leachate collection and removal system will continue to be collected and trucked to the Lucas Point WPCP.

The preferred alternative will maintain all activities, i.e. waste disposal, leachate treatment, within the existing property boundary, in addition to preserving the buffer space on the western property boundary while proposing the smallest footprint increase but the largest airspace increase.

If EAA approval is granted, the County will be required to complete the proposed undertaking in accordance with the EA and any conditions of approval. In addition, the County must still obtain all other legislative approvals required for the undertaking.

Figure 1: Study area

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

Figure 2: Proposed landfill expansion footprint

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 has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry Analysis

The MOECC coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The MOECC has concluded that the EA followed the framework set out in the approved ToR and addresses each of the commitments set forthe in the ToR. The MOECC has also concluded the required components of the EAA have been met.

Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR requirements have been addressed in the EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-submission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be undertaken prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR. Several methods of consultation were used by the County throughout the EA process and included meetings with the GRT, meetings with the Brighton Landfill Liaison Committee, public open houses, site vicinity and on-site study areas tours, media releases, newsletters, and maintaining a project website. The intent of the consultation plan was to provide information on the project, obtain input, and address comments.

The MOECC is satisfied that the level of consultation undertaken with the public and GRT was appropriate for this proposed undertaking. This included providing an opportunity to government reviewers and other key stakeholders to provide comments on a draft version of the EA prior to submission.

The EA adequately describes the consultation that was undertaken and the outcomes of the various consultation activities/events.

Once the EA is submitted to the MOECC, additional MOECC driven consultation occurs during the seven-week EA comment period. The GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities were provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the MOECC on whether the requirements of the ToR have been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the MOECC during the EA comment period were forwarded to the County for a response. Summaries of all comments received along with the proponent’s responses are included in Tables 1 and 2. Copies of the GRT's submissions are also available in Appendix B.

Government Review Team

Consultation with the GRT was conducted throughout the EA process. This included pre-submission discussions, technical meetings with MOECC staff and key members of the GRT and through providing an opportunity to review of the draft EA. Many of the comments provided to the County from the GRT on the draft EA were incorporated into the final EA. A summary of the comments provided on the draft EA and the County’s responses can be found in Volume 2 of the Environmental Assessment Study Report document Consultation Record.

Members of the GRT were provided copies of the final EA for their review during the seven week comment period. All comments received by the MOECC were forwarded to the County for a response. A summary the comments and the County’s responses can be found in Table 1 of this Review.

Comments were received by the ministries of Environment (MOECC), Natural Resources (MNR); Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS), as well as by federal agencies such as Transport Canada (TC) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The ministries of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Rural Affairs and Environment Canada had no further comments or concerns with the proposal.

Provincial agencies

MOECC reviewers identified several issues relating to the air and odour assessment that was completed for the Project. Environmental Approvals Branch staff, as well as Eastern Region Technical Support Staff, cited the following with regards to air and odour impacts:

  • The County should have used a local meteorological data set (as opposed to a regional meteorological data set) to complete its frequency analysis of odour impacts
  • A newer version of the air modelling software AERMOD should have been used instead of previous version to assess air impacts
  • Landfill gas impact assessment should have been modelled using the MOECC's preferred LandGem model (as opposed to the GasSim model that was used by the County in the assessment)
  • The evaluation of non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) should be expanded to include all the contaminants listed in the US-EPA AP-42 publication for landfill gas impacts. The EA only included 2 NMOCs in its air assessment.
  • The air modelling assessment concluded that certain NMOCs exceeds Ontario Regulation 419/05 limits (which would prevent an Environmental Compliance Approval to be obtained by the MOECC).

The MNR provided comments on species at risk, specifically relating to new regulations under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) that have been released since comments were last provided to the County during the ToR and Draft EA reviews. MNR did not identify any significant concerns, but rather advised the County to be aware of the new regulations and to follow general mitigation measures during the consideration of species at risk. To date a permit under the ESA has not been identified for this project.

The MTCS indicated that it was not satisfied with the County’s assessment of potential impacts to the cultural environment. Specifically, MTCS identified that the County did not adequately assess impacts to built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. As a result, MTCS recommended that the County undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment prior to the Project proceeding to implementation. MTCS would not confirm its satisfaction with the EA until a Heritage Impact Assessment was completed and reviewed and its conclusions were reasonable.

Refer to Section 3.3 of this Review for further discussion of the issues raised by the GRT and how they were addressed by the County.

Federal government agencies

TC indicated an interest in this landfill site as it is approximately 15 km to the nearest airport (Trenton Airport). As TC is concerned with impacts between aircrafts and birds, it identified potential issues as a result of this landfill expansion due to its proximity to an airport. although no specific issues were raised as a result of this EA with regards to impacts to the natural environment, TC recommended a bird hazard management plan be prepared by the County and that the County should commit to putting measures in place to operate the waste disposal facility as a "bird-free site".

DFO did not raise any specific concerns of the Project with regards to impacts to fish or fish habitat and that the undertaking would not require a formal approval from DFO in order to proceed. Rather, it provided direction to the County advising that under the new Fisheries Act, the County is required to advise DFO of any harmful alteration or disruption, or any destruction of fish habitat that has not been autheorized.

Public consultation

The proponent described the consultation process it undertook in Chapter 3 of the EA and in Appendices A-D Consultation Record. The County used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public including: Open Houses; meetings with local property owners; site vicinity and on-site study areas tours; media releases; presentations at the Brighton Landfill Liaison Committee (BLLC) meetings; newsletters; and maintaining a project website.

The BLLC is a committee that was established in the early 2000s to consult with members of the community and local officials about issues and operations at the Brighton Landfill, to develop site-specific improvement objectives. In total, the County had 5 meetings with the BLLC during the development of the ToR and the EA. The County met with the BLLC at each stage of the EA process to discuss the results of consultation activities and any public comments received.

Throughout the development of the EA, the County held three public open houses to discuss the project and to answer any questions from the stakeholders in attendance. The County hosted three and five hour sessions at the Brighton Community Centre. Project Team members were in attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussions. Display boards and information were made available in English and French at each session. The approved ToR and draft work plans were also made available for public review and comment. In addition, the County held individual meetings November 2011 and March 2013 with residents and property owners who live near the landfill to discuss property value and land use issues relating to the landfill and proposed expansion.

Notifications were provided in advance for each public information session. Invitations were sent to GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities, via direct mail or e-mail. As required by the approved ToR, the County published its Notices of Commencement and Submission of the EA in the local newspapers and updated its website at various points during the development of the EA to inform the public on upcoming public open house. The Notice of Commencement and open house notification was placed in local newspapers (e.g. The Independent, northumberland Today and northumberland News) between June 16-17, 2011. A contact database was maintained throughout the EA study to contact interested public and key stakeholders of study issues and events. The contact database was updated after each public information session to include individuals that signed-in with their contact information on the distribution list.

The County also made copies of the Draft EA and its supporting documents available on the Project website on June 20, 2012 to members of the public. This provided an opportunity for anyone interested in submitting comments directly to the County for its consideration as it finalized the EA.

Following formal submission the EA, no comments were received from any members of the public.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to the requirement in the EAA that interested persons be consulted, the Crown and the proponent must also initiate consultation with Aboriginal communities who may have aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the proposed undertaking. The Crown has a duty to consult where a contemplated action by the Crown may adversely affect Aboriginal or treaty rights. The Crown may delegate procedural aspects of the duty to the proponent.

As a result, a list of Aboriginal communities who may have aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the proposed undertaking or that may otherwise be interested in the proposed undertaking was developed and those communities were provided with information on the EA throughout the process. Information was provided to:

  • Alderville First Nation
  • Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) First Nation
  • Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
  • Beausoleil First Nation
  • Curve Lake First Nation
  • Hiawatha First Nation
  • Huron-Wendat First Nation
  • Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation
  • Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
  • Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte First Nation
  • Moose Deer Point First Nation

Information was also provided to:

  • Métis Nation of Ontario

Ontario’s Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs and northrn Development Canada were contacted with respect to the development of the list of communities.

During the preparation of the EA, the Aboriginal communities were kept informed on the progress of the EA through information emails and notices and were invited to public open houses in June and November 2011 and June 2012. They also received a copy of the Draft EA on June 20, 2012 to review and provide comments on.

In March 2012, follow up contact via email was made by the County’s consultants to the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario in order to confirm receipt of the documentation and to solicit any comments or concerns. The proponent also followed up via email with the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario in April 2012 and offered to meet with them to discuss the proposed project and requested that they provide any comments on the proposed project to them. No comments were provided by the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario during the pre-submission stage. Further details of the consultation undertaken by the County can be found in Chapter 4 of the EA and in Appendix A-D Record of Consultation.

In September 2013 the final EA was provided to the previously contacted Aboriginal communities. The MOECC followed up with each of the Aboriginal Communities in October 2013 to solicit any comments that they had. The Chippewas of Georgina Island, Hiawatha First Nation, and Huron-Wendat First Nation indicated that they would like to be kept informed on the status of the Project. However, to date no comments have been provided to MOECC from any Aboriginal community.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

The EAA requires that the proponent consult with all interested persons during the preparation of the EA and report on the results of that consultation. The MOECC is satisfied that the proponent appropriately carried out the consultation plan that was outlined in the approved ToR.

Overall, the MOECC believes that the proponent provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. Concerns raised by the public and other stakeholders were considered during the preparation of the final EA.

The EA documents the consultation methods that were undertaken by the County to engage government reviewers, Aboriginal communities and members of the public during the development of the EA. The EA discusses the concerns raised and how they were addressed or will be addressed if the EA is approved.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The MOECC is satisfied that the consultation carried out meets the requirements of the EAA and is in accordance with the approved ToR.

3.2 EA Process

EA is a planning process that requires a proponent to identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the potential effects of those alternatives against select criteria and then select a preferred alternative.

In general, the County followed a logical and transparent decision making process that was outlined in the EA. Refer to Appendix A of this Review for the MOECC's analysis of how the EA met the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR.

The evaluation of alternatives in the EA consisted of:

  • Describing the problem or purpose
  • Describing and providing a rationale for the alternative methods identified in the approved ToR which included alternative landfill footprints and alternative leachate treatment options
  • Describing the environment potentially affected by each alternative within the study area described in the EA
  • Predicting and evaluating environmental effects for each alternative taking into account mitigation measures (net effects)
  • Conducting a comparative evaluation, including taking into account the relative importance of the evaluation criteria which was established with input from the public and government agencies. The comparative analysis discussed advantages and disadvantages. A reasoned argument or trade off method was used to identify a preferred alternative
  • Identifying and providing a rationale for selecting the preferred undertaking

3.2.1 Key issues

Through the review of the final EA, staff from the MOECC determined whether or not the County followed the EA process and have incorporated the commitments in the approved ToR into the final EA that was submitted for review and a decision.

No public comments were received on the final EA with regards to the EA process.

Ministry staff have concluded that there are no key issues with the County’s EA planning process for the proposed Project.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the MOECC, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decision making process.

The EA contains an explanation of the problem that prompted the EA. The County considered a reasonable range of alternative methods to the undertaking and evaluated them in a defined study area that took into consideration the EAA's broad definition of the environment.

The EA provides a description of the potentially affected environment in the study area and identifies potential impacts of the alternatives. The EA also includes monitoring and contingency plans (such as surface and groundwater monitoring plans and the installation of purge wells in the event of an issue with the engineered liners) to ensure any potential negative impacts of the undertaking are minimized.

The EA adequately describes the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking to the environment based on the potential environmental effects.

Requirements of the EAA for consultation with the public, GRT and Aboriginal communities have been met.

The MOECC is satisfied that the EA was completed in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is described in section 4.0 of the EA (see also section 2 of this Review) and was evaluated based on the net impacts of each alternative and the advantages and disadvantages to the environment. A broad definition of the environment was used to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed undertaking.

3.3.1 Key issues

Key issues regarding the proposed undertaking were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. A number of concerns were raised by the GRT and the peer review. Submissions from the GRT and peer review can be found in Appendix B of this Review. A summary of all comments, including the County’s responses and the MOECC's level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 and 2 of this Review.

Groundwater protection

Through a peer review of the EA undertaken by BGC Engineering Inc. on behalf of the Municipality of Brighton, a number of concerns relating to potential impacts on groundwater from the proposed new landfill site were raised. BGC has indicated that existing waste site may be potentially contaminating the groundwater, specifically as a result of chloride. BGC indicates that geotechnical evaluations undertaken to identify the source of the chloride concludes that the waste site (and more specifically the landfill leachate) may be the source of the contamination.

The County’s response to this issue identifies that the preferred alternative, which is to construct a liner throughout the expanded waste footprint and to truck all collected leachate to an off-site location for treatment, will essentially eliminate any future potential impacts to the groundwater as a result of leachate infiltration. In addition, the County is already committed to ongoing groundwater monitoring and has documented its commitments in the EA.

Ministry technical reviewers have no outstanding concerns with respect to how the EA addresses impacts to groundwater. A groundwater monitoring program is typically required as part of the Environmental Compliance Approvals under the EPA and includes the duration, timing and frequency of groundwater monitoring. Under the EPA, annual reporting by the County is required to be provided to the MOECC to ensure that the County is in compliance with it ground water monitoring program and to ensure that any issues are addressed. If the EA is approved, conditions are recommended to ensure that the monitoring programs are adhered to and submitted to the MOECC for review and that the County involves relevant stakeholders, including the Municipality of Brighton, during the detail design stage and in the review of any required groundwater monitoring plans.

Air/Odour

Ministry staff raised a number of concerns regarding how the modelling for potential air and odour impacts was undertaken, in addition to identifying concerns with the level of assessment undertaken to predict air and odour impacts. Ministry staff indicated that the issues raised with regards to air and odour, unless addressed, would result in the County possibly being not in compliance with the requirements of O. Reg. 419/05 – Air pollution – Local Air quality; and would likely result in the Project not receiving its Environmental Compliance Approvals from the Ministry of the Environment for the landfill expansion.

Firstly, MOECC staff indicated that it was not satisfied with the approach taken by the County to model impacts to air quality. Staff did not agree with the County’s decision to use the GasSim software to predict landfill gas impacts, since landfill gas impact assessments are usually undertaken using the MOECC accepted Landgem modelling software. Staff also expressed concerns that the County has not adequately documented the inputs into the model (i.e. waste input rates, waste compositions, waste density, methane generation potential, decay coefficient, age of landfill, etc.) in the EA. As a result, MOECC staff would not accept the approach taken by the County that the impacts to air predicted by the modelling were acceptable. Staff requested that the County recalculate the air emissions assessment and resubmit to the MOECC as a supplemental document to the EA. The County prepared this additional revised documentation, which included updated contaminant assessments and modelling calculations (using the accepted Landgem software) and submitted it to MOECC staff for review (See Appendix C). Ministry staff reviewed the documentation and confirmed that the revised landfill gas impact assessment and modelling is now consistent with the practices of estimating landfill gas emissions in north America and is the approach referred to in the MOECC’s guide to estimate and assess landfill air impacts.

Ministry staff also raised concerns regarding the number of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) that were assessed in the EA. Staff were concerned that since the County only assessed the impacts associated to vinyl chloride and hydrogen sulphide, that a fulsome assessment could not be accepted as the MOECC contends that a full list of contaminants outlined in the US-EPA AP-42 document "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" (1995) should have been assessed. As such, MOECC staff asked that the County to revise the EA to include a full list of contaminants. The County compiled the revised assessment, which included an expanded list of contaminants and an assessment of the impacts, and submitted it to MOECC staff for review (See Appendix C). Upon reviewing, MOECC staff confirmed that the revised assessment in which over 50 NMOCs of concern were included is now acceptable.

With regards to specific contaminants, MOECC staff raised concerns with the proponents assessment of air quality. Ministry staff note that vinyl chloride was shown in the assessment to exceed the Point of Impingement (POI) compliance limit, as per O. Reg 419/05. The County revised the EA documentation and modelling to show that all NMOCs, including vinyl chloride, can now demonstrate compliance with O. Reg 419/05. although a possible revision to the property boundaries were considered to meet the requirements, the County confirmed it was able to meet the requirements by re-modelling using a more representative release height. This approach was acceptable to MOECC staff, who confirmed that it no longer has any outstanding concerns with the County’s assessment of air impacts and its compliance with O. Reg 419/05.

In addition, MOECC staff contend that the composting facility was not adequately assessed as an odour source in the EA, and that it should be included in the odour assessment. although the County contends that the leaf and yard waste composting facility is a small component of the landfill operation and accounts for less than 5% of the total odour emissions, it agreed to model the composting facility as a separate source to demonstrate it was able to meet the requirements of O. Reg 419/05.

Furthermore, MOECC staff identified issues with the type of meteorological data used to predict odour impacts by the Project. Staff identified that the odour impact modelling should have been conducted using local meteorological data set, as indicated in the MOECC's technical bulletin "methodology for Modelling Assessments of Contaminants with 10-minute Average Standards and Guidelines (2008)"; as opposed to the Regional meteorological data that was used in the EA. Staff indicated that the odour assessment must be revised and modelled using the local data. The County prepared the revised modelling documentation using the local meteorological data set provided by the MOECC and submitted it along with the other revised documentation. MOECC staff reviewed the revised modelling and have confirmed that this issue has now been addressed to the MOECC's satisfaction.

In light of the above analysis, the MOECC has no outstanding concerns with respect to potential impacts from air or odour from the proposed site.

Cultural heritage

MTCS staff raised concerns at the draft EA stage regarding potential impacts to cultural heritage resources and the County’s level of assessment, and the Final EA did not address all of MTCS' concerns. MTCS indicated that the technical report appended to the EA addressing built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes did not meet its expectations. although a Stage 1 Archaeological assessment was undertaken prior to the submission of the final EA document, MTCS recommended that the County must undertake a more fulsome Heritage Impact Assessment in order to more accurately predict potential impacts to cultural and built heritage in the Project study area.

As a result of the outstanding MTCS concerns, the County agreed to undertake a site visit in January 2014 and then complete a Heritage Impact Assessment and submitted it to MTCS for review (See Appendix C). The Heritage Impact Assessment confirmed that there are no predicted effects on the built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes as a result of the proposed expansion of the. Therefore, the County felt that no additional mitigation measures are warranted. The Heritage Impact Assessment was reviewed by both MTCS and MOECC staff as a component of the additional documentation package that was submitted to address all outstanding concerns with the EA. MTCS confirmed to MOECC staff that the report’s conclusion that the properties assessed do not exhibit any cultural heritage value or interest was determined to be acceptable. Therefore, in light of the above analysis, the MOECC has no outstanding concerns with respect to potential impacts to the surrounding cultural environment.

3.3.2 Conclusion

The County has provided responses to all comments received, including those not detailed above. All comments and the proponent’s responses are located in Tables 1 and 2 of this Review.

Ministry staff are satisfied that the County has met the requirements of the ToR and EAA for the components of the EA raised in section 3.3.1 above, as well as those raised in Tables 1 and 2.

The MOECC is also satisfied that the proposed expanded landfill footprint will be designed and operated to comply with MOECC's standards and that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can be managed through the commitments made in the EA, through conditions of approval, or through additional work that must be carried out by the County in support of future approval applications, if the EA is approved.

A final review period and a recommendation to the Minister about this EA will follow the publishing of this Review. If the EA is approved by the Minister, conditions specific to the proposed undertaking may be proposed to ensure the environment remains protected.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the MOECC's analysis of the County’s EA for an expansion to the Brighton Landfill.

This Review concludes that the EA complies with the requirements of the approved ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. The EA has provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking.

The Review concludes that the EA has assessed and evaluated alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternative methods and the proposed undertaking, and provides a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

The MOECC is satisfied that the County provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, public, stakeholders, and Aboriginal communities to comment during the development of the EA. Concerns raised by the GRT have been addressed by the County or a commitment has been made to address them through additional work that will be completed as part of future approval requirements.

If the proposed undertaking is approved under the EAA, there are several standard conditions that are included in an approval such as the requirement to conduct and report the results of compliance monitoring and to develop a protocol for responding to complaints received during all the phases of the undertaking. There may also be specific conditions imposed on this proposed undertaking if warranted.

What happens now

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the MOECC about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA 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, MOECC staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the EA 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 EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the EA and the Review comment periods and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister may 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 either part of or the entire EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire EA 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 County will still require other approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 1.6 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

  • Approval under section 20.2 of the EPA for an activity covered by section 9 (air & noise) and section 27 (waste) disposal site) for the landfill expansion and excavation
  • Approval under section 20.2 of the EPA for an activity covered by section 53 (sewage works) under the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA)
  • Permit to Take Water under the OWRA
  • Approvals under the Planning Act (e.g. rezoning, etc.)
  • Approval under Ontario Regulation 163/06 from the Lower Trent Conservation Authority for the construction in or alteration of watercourses

These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted. Furthermore, EAA approval does not imply that other approvals will be granted.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed EA

The EA Code of Practice 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 and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario

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

Municipality of Brighton, Main Office
35 Alice Street
Brighton, Ontario
K0H 1H0

Monday to Friday
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Township of Alnwick/Haldimand, Main Office
10836 County Road, no. 2
Grafton, Ontario
K0K 2G0

Monday to Friday
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Municipality of Trent Hills, Main Office
66 Front Street
Campbellford, Ontario
K0L 1L0

Monday to Friday
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Municipality of Port Hope, Main Office
56 Queen Street
Port Hope, Ontario
L1A 3Z9

Monday to Friday
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

County of northumberland, Main Office
555 Courtheouse Road
Cobourg, Ontario
K9A 5J6

Monday to Friday
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Town of Cobourg, Main Office
55 King Street West
Cobourg, Ontario
K9A 2M2

Monday to Friday
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Township of Hamilton, Main Office
8285 Majestic Hills Drive
Cobourg, Ontario
K9A 4W5

Monday to Friday
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Township of Cramahe, Main Office
1 Toronto Street
Colborne, Ontario
K0K 1S0

Monday to Friday
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

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

Monday to Friday
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Kingston Regional Office
1259 Gardiners Road
Box 22032
Kingston, Ontario
K7M 8S5

Monday to Friday
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Peterborough District Office
Robinson Place south
Tower 300 Water Street, 2nd floor
Peterborough, Ontario
K9J 8M5

Monday to Friday
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending September 3, 2014 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 Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Brighton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment
Attention: Adam Sanzo, 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 the initial comment period

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