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 August 31, 2012. 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

Gerdau Ameristeel Recycling (GAR)

What

Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes: An expansion of the existing on-site landfill for shredder by-product residue and provision for extraction of landfilled materials for processing. With the landfill expansion and extraction of materials for processing, the proposed new landfill capacity is 4,670,000 m3 (excluding final cover).

When

EA submitted: June 8, 2012
Ministry Review comment period: September 14, 2012–October 19, 2012

Where

The proposed undertaking will be located at the GAR's existing steel mill and shredder facility located at 1801 Hopkins Street south in Whitby, Ontario.

Why

In 2006, GAR recognized that the existing landfill was reaching capacity and that a solution for management of shredder by-product residue was needed. Recent technological advances and the establishment of markets for recycled products have created an opportunity for recovering over 90% of material for recycling. This, in turn, presents an opportunity for GAR to extract previously landfilled material to recycle and reuse while creating additional landfill capacity.

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’s evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject 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 (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment (ministry) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On August 11, 2009, the Minister approved the amended ToR for the On-Site Management Options for Produced and Landfilled Shredder By-Product Residue from the Gerdau Ameristeel Recycling (GAR) Facility. The ToR set out how GAR would assess alternatives, assess environmental effects and consult with the public during the preparation of the EA. The ToR established the process GAR would follow to assess alternative methods for carrying out the proposed undertaking and to identify mitigation measures to address net effects of the preferred undertaking.

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 ministry for review and approval.

On June 8, 2012, GAR submitted the Gerdau Ameristeel Recycling Environmental Assessment to the ministry for a decision on the proposed expansion of their onsite landfill and provision for future extraction, recovery and re-use of landfilled material for use in the steel mill operation or for the production of saleable products. Approval is being sought for a maximum annual disposal rate of 230,000 tonnes per year. The EA comment period ended on July 27, 2012.

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 ministry. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the EA undertaking.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA, known simply as the Ministry Review (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 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 of the Environment 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. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone can 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 can 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 a local newspaper indicating that the Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period. Copies of the Review have been placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested 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

In 2011, Gerdau Ameristeel, headquartered in Brazil, celebrated its 110th anniversary. Gerdau Ameristeel is the fourthe largest overall steel company and second largest mini-mill steel producer in north America. Through an integrated network of mini-mills, steel scrap recycling facilities and downstream operations, the company serves customers throughout north America. GAR, a division of Gerdau Ameristeel, is the proponent for this proposed undertaking.

In addition to the steel mill and shredder facility in Whitby (operating since 1964 as LASCO until 2002 when the two companies merged), other Ontario-based operations of Gerdau Ameristeel include a steel mill in Cambridge and seven scrap yards throughout the province. The facility in Whitby is located on an approximately 150 hectares of property with approximately 1,000 metres fronting onto Lake Ontario (see Figure 1).

The GAR recycling facility in Whitby receives end-of-life vehicles and other metal-containing material (e.g. white goods and scrap metal), shreds them and recovers the ferrous metal for re-use at the on-site steel mill and at the steel mill in Cambridge. The non-ferrous materials are sent to third party suppliers.

Currently about 70 percent (by weight) of incoming materials is recovered by GAR. The remaining material, shredder by-product residue, consists mainly of rubber, plastics, foam, and fabric material. Recent technological advances and the establishment of markets for recycled products have created the potential of recovering over 90 percent (by weight) of material for recycling. In addition, vehicles now contain less metal which GAR has indicated is both a challenge and an opportunity. GAR must ensure it is as efficient as possible in removing all metal from the vehicles and is also exploring new opportunities for reusing/recycling the shredder by-product residue.

Landfilling of the shredder by-product residue at the site began in 1986 by then-owners LASCO. At the time, an EA was not required and the facility was approved for landfilling under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). Then, in 1988, LASCO undertook an EA (through a Voluntary Agreement) to assess alternatives for a long-term solution for managing shredder by-product residue. Results of the EA concluded that landfilling was the preferred alternative. The EA was approved on March 9, 1994. The landfill was designed in a berm-like shape to provide a visual screen of the shredder operation and also to provide greater flexibility for future property use. In 1998, the Certificate of Approval (CofA) (now called an Environmental Compliance Approval or ECA) was amended to allow for an increase in the rate of landfilling and to permit excavation and recovery of shredder by product residue from the berm-shaped landfill. The landfill has an approved capacity of 1.5 million tonnes with an annual disposal rate of 150,000 tonnes and an average daily disposal rate of 500 tonnes.

The landfill is currently approved to receive solid non-hazardous industrial waste comprised of residue from the on-site operations. The general characteristics of the waste differ from that of many other types of waste (e.g. solid non-hazardous household waste) in that the residue is generally inorganic and as such remains stable and does not experience significant biological decomposition.

In 2006, GAR recognized that the existing landfill was nearing capacity and that a long-term solution for the management of shredder by-product residue was needed and began a new EA process in 2007.

Description of the proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is for the expansion of the on-site landfill and provision for future extraction, recovery and re-use of landfilled shredder by-product residue for the production of saleable products. Specifically, GAR is seeking approval for:

  • An additional 4,670,000 m3 in landfill capacity with an annual disposal rate of 230,000 tonnes/year of solid non-hazardous industrial waste that is contiguous with the existing landfill. The additional air space includes internal fire separation berms and perimeter fill area starter berms but excludes final cover.
  • Reclamation of residue from the existing landfill for further processing into saleable products. The existing landfill will only be mined once to ensure it continues to provide a visual barrier of operations at the site.
  • Provision for reclamation of residue from the expanded landfill if those materials can be recycled and reused in the future.

The estimated life of the landfill will range from approximately 25.5 years to 39.1 years depending on the rate of shredder by-product residue generation. GAR has also assumed that there will be no requirements for daily cover and that residue will be compacted to an average density of 1,000 kg/m3. The proposed landfill expansion has been designed to meet the requirements of O. Reg. 232/98 under the Environmental Protection Act.

The existing landfill operates during daylight hours (typically from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) five days a week. The proposed undertaking will increase the days the site is operating from five (Monday–Friday) to six days a week (Monday–Saturday).

The proposed undertaking will begin construction as soon as all approvals have been granted as the site reached capacity in 2011 and is currently utilizing a Temporary Waste Storage Area (TWSA). The TWSA is approved to store up to 270,000 tonnes of residue which must be removed by December 31, 2014. Currently, the TWSA is expected to reach approved capacity by the fall of 2013. If construction is not complete prior to the TWSA reaching capacity, GAR will need to ship residue off-site to an approved landfill.

The existing landfill is generally “U” shaped, with disposal areas aligned parallel to the east, west and south sides of the southrn portion of GAR's property. The footprint of the proposed landfill expansion is 185,010 m2 (18.5 hectares). The expanded footprint will overlap onto the side slopes of the five existing perimeter cells. The new capacity will be located to the north and west of the existing landfill and will be visually shielded by the existing landfill (see Figure 2).

If EAA approval is granted, GAR will be required to complete the proposed undertaking in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA; any proposed conditions of approval; and will include the details outlined above. In addition, GAR must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Figure 1: Aerial view of Gerdau Ameristeel and surrounding area

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

Figure 2: Proposed landfill expansion

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 ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The ministry concludes that the EA followed the framework set out in the approved ToR, addressed the commitments made in the ToR, and demonstrated how the requirements of the EAA were 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 taken 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 GAR throughout the EA process and included public information sessions, kitchen table meetings, meetings with various government agencies, open houses and site visits. The intent of the consultation plan was to establish an effective method(s) to dialogue with project stakeholders early on and throughout the process.

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

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

although the EA indicates that the majority of Aboriginal communities were provided with opportunities to participate and comment on the EA, evidence of this consultation was not included in the EA or in the record of consultation. In response to this, GAR provided clarification and further evidence, including copies of letters and call logs, confirming that Aboriginal communities were consulted and were provided opportunities to comment during the development of the EA.

Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and potentially affected Aboriginal communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to GAR for a response. Summaries of the all comments received along with the proponent’s responses are included in Tables 1-3. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B.

Government Review Team

Consultation with the GRT was conducted throughout the EA process, including pre-submission discussions with ministry staff and key members of the GRT on a number of versions of the draft EA. Comments provided to GAR from the ministry were incorporated into the final EA. A summary of the comments provided and GAR's responses can be found in the EA beginning on page 145 in Appendix O: Record of Consultation.

Members of the GRT were provided copies of the June 8, 2012 EA for their review during the seven-week comment period. All comments received by the ministry were forwarded to GAR for a response. A summary of GAR's responses can be found in Table 1 of this Review.

Ministry reviewers provided comments on concerns related to potential impacts on ground and surface water and recommended that a full characterization of the leachate be conducted at least in two different scenarios (i.e. dry season and wet season following a spring freshet) to identify the contaminants of concern. Ministry reviewers requested that the proponent, at the ECA stage, commit to conducting a full leachate characterization and prepare/refine the list of contaminants of concern. GAR has agreed to complete a full characterization of the leachate and prepare/refine the list of contaminants of concern.

Ministry reviewers also requested clarification in a number of areas as the descriptions provided in various supporting documents were either inconsistent or not clear. For example, ministry reviewers indicated that the description of the interceptor trenches was not consistent in the various reports submitted in support of the EA and the description/purpose of the new stormwater management ponds was not clear. In response, GAR has provided additional clarity and has committed to revising key technical reports (e.g. Hydrogeological Assessment Report and Design and Operations Report) at the ECA stage to address the concern.

Public consultation

The proponent described the consultation process it undertook in section 7 of the EA. As required in the approved ToR, GAR published its Notice of Commencement of the EA in the local newspaper (Whitby This Week) and updated its website at various points during the development of the EA. GAR also held three Open Houses during the development of the EA, one of which included a tour of the landfill. As well, GAR held one-on-one meetings with key stakeholder group, and completed a survey and interviews to solicit feedback/comments on the results of the cultural heritage, ecological, visual impact, and landscape studies. GAR also made copies of the Draft EA and its supporting documents available to members of the public and provided a four week review period for anyone interested to submit comments directly to GAR for its consideration as it finalized the EA.

Following formal submission the EA, comments were received from four members of the public and from one local business. Concerns from the public were related to impacts from emissions/dust from the existing site, and potential contaminants from the end-of-life vehicles and white goods that are being processed. GAR responded to the concerns and indicated that commitments to control dust for the proposed expansion and extraction include:

  • Continued enforcement of 25 km/h speed limit on landfill roads
  • Use of dust suppressant when necessary
  • Treatment of active area with water as required
  • Sweeping of paved roads
  • Minimize eartheworks during extreme weather and high winds
  • Maintain vegetative screening in the landfill buffer area
  • Seed/vegetate/tarp stockpiles

With respect to the concerns about potential contaminants from end-of-life vehicles, GAR indicated that they have a comprehensive source control program in place with automotive dismantlers and scrap dealers to ensure that materials arriving onsite do not include hazardous materials. GAR also undertakes regular sampling and chemical analysis of the shredder by-product residue is carried out to assess and ensure its quality. Further, GAR monitors the ground water and surface water in and around the site in accordance with its ECA.

Detailed comments raised by the public are documented in Table 2 of this Review.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to public consultation, the EAA requires that Aboriginal communities within the surrounding area of the proposed undertaking be consulted with during the pre-submission period. Aboriginal communities have special land and treaty rights that need to be considered.

As a result, GAR developed a list of potentially impacted Aboriginal communities and provided them with information on the EA throughout the process. The initial list of Aboriginal communities that were contacted include:

  • Alderville First Nation
  • Beausoleil First Nation
  • Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
  • Chippewas of Nawash First Nation
  • Curve Lake First Nation
  • Hiawatha First Nation
  • Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
  • Six Nations of the Grand River Territory First Nation
  • Huron Wendat

This list was developed in consultation with Aboriginal Affairs and northrn Development Canada, and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. During preparation of the EA, the above communities were kept informed on the progress of the EA, and received a copy of the Draft EA to review and provide comments on.

Each of the above communities were invited to attend an Open House and Information

Session on February 25, 2010 hosted by GAR. No representatives from any of the Aboriginal communities were noted to be in attendance. Following this event, in June 2011 each of the above communities were sent a copy of the draft EA to review and comment. In September 2011, follow up calls were made by GAR's consultants with a number of the Aboriginal communities listed above in order to confirm receipt of the documentation and to solicit any comments or concerns. The follow up calls were made to those Aboriginal communities who had not provided comments or that had not provided correspondence indicating they had received the draft EA. Further details of the consultation undertaken by GAR can be found in the Record of Consultation.

On September 26, 2011 the following additional Aboriginal communities were added to the contact list and were provided a copy of the draft EA:

  • Oshawa Durham Region Métis Council
  • Métis Nation of Ontario
  • Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation
  • Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation
  • Moose Deer Point First Nation

The final EA was provided to all of the above noted Aboriginal communities and responses and/or acknowledgements of receiving the EA were received from three communities including Curve Lake First Nation, the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, and the Chippewas of Rama First Nation.

Substantive comments were received from Curve Lake First Nation. This First Nation indicated that, in general, they are concerned about impacts to the environment, including concerns about potential contamination of groundwater as a result of burying waste which could negatively impact fish and wild game in their traditional territory. GAR responded and indicated that the proposed expansion will contain a leachate collection system and that all leachate will continue to be treated to ensure protection of water sources. In addition, Curve Lake First Nation also reminded GAR of its legal obligations should they uncover a native burial site or any other Archaeological findings. GAR indicated that it is aware of its legal obligations and would immediately halt any work should they uncover a native burial site or any other Archaeological findings.

No specific comments were received from the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, and the Chippewas of Rama First Nation, only an acknowledgement that they had received the EA and wish to be kept informed of its progress through the EA approval process.

Ministry staff followed up with each of the remaining Aboriginal communities via phone and email on various occasions throughout July 2012 to ensure the EA was received and to solicit feedback on the proposed undertaking.

A summary of comments submitted by Curve Lake First Nation can be found in Table 3.

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 ministry is satisfied that the proponent appropriately carried out the consultation plan that was outlined in the approved ToR.

Overall, the ministry 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 and the proponent has also committed to ongoing consultation following approval of the EA (if granted) through the development of a new communications strategy to keep all interested parties informed on the status of the facility. A new Site Liaison Committee has been proposed by GAR to address any future community concerns. The new committee will retain the same functions as the existing Berm Liaison Committee however; the proposed name change is to ensure it reflects the fact that the committee will have a role overseeing all functions at the landfill. GAR has committed to working with the existing Berm Liaison Committee to establish this.

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

3.1.3 Conclusion

The ministry is satisfied that the consultation carried out meets the requirements of the EAA and follows the outline as approved in the 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 2006, GAR recognized that the existing landfill was nearing capacity and that a long-term solution for the management of shredder by-product residue was needed. GAR, as a privately held company, decided that it would only look at alternatives to managing shredder by-product residue at its site in Whitby.

In accordance with the approved ToR, the study areas that were used to assess potential impacts to the environment for the above alternatives were on-site, within the site’s vicinity and in the community. A description of the environment potentially affected by the undertaking for each of the study areas is provided in Section 4 of the EA.

This EA was prepared in accordance with section 6(2)(c) of the EAA. GAR prepared a ToR that was approved by the Minister of the Environment on August 11, 2009. The alternative methods that GAR examined were:

  1. On-site processing of generated and excavated shredder by-product residue into resalable material and products
  2. Expansion of on-site landfill capacity and provision for extraction of landfilled material for processing
  3. Expansion of on-site landfill capacity

In the EA, an explanation of each of the alternative methods examined can be found in Section 5.1.

In accordance with the approved ToR, a preliminary comparative evaluation of the alternatives using four screening criteria was undertaken. Following this evaluation, two of the three alternatives remained for further examination and evaluation. Alternative 1 was removed for further evaluation as it was determined to not be economically feasible through research and discussions with various members of the business community in Canada and the United States. The remaining two alternatives moved to the next stage in the evaluation process

Section 5.3 of the EA details the comparative evaluation that the two remaining alternatives were assessed against in the evaluation process. The criteria used in the second stage of the evaluation were sub-divided into five major groupings: natural environment, built environment, social and cultural environment, economic environment and site design and operations. A description of each criterion is provided in table 5.2. The two alternatives were compared using the evaluation criteria which determined the preferred alternative. In addition to following the approach outlined in then approved ToR, GAR also included an additional step to ensure clarity in the evaluation process (described below). Based on the comparative evaluation it was determined that Alternative 2, Expansion of on-site landfill capacity and provision for extraction of landfilled material for processing, is the preferred alternative.

It should be noted that the methodology as presented in the EA differs slightly from that of the approved ToR. As mentioned above, an additional step was included in which GAR confirmed the criteria that was to be used to evaluate the alternatives that remained following the comparative evaluation. The criteria and indicators were reviewed based on the following considerations to confirm they were still appropriate:

  • must apply to, and be relevant to, the effects that might be caused by the short-list alternatives
  • must allow for a meaningful differentiation of the environmental effects between the alternatives

The additional step was undertaken to provide additional clarity to reduce duplication in the evaluation process. Ministry staff were consulted on the revision and are satisfied the additional clarity was beneficial to the process and meets the requirements of the approved ToR and the EAA. The revisions are as follows:

  • In the approved ToR, “social” community had been included as a criterion under both the “Built Environment” and “Social and Cultural Environment” criteria groups. To avoid duplication of information the criterion was removed from the “Built Environment” criteria group.
  • A Site Design and Operations criteria group was added to reflect the need to include the economic feasibility and technical benefits in the evaluation of alternatives.
  • Consideration of the impact on local businesses was added to the Business Community criterion.

Section 6 of the EA provides a detailed description of the preferred alternative and assesses potential impacts to the environment and describes the mitigation measures proposed by GAR to reduce any potential effects on the environment in accordance with the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR. A summary of the potential effects, proposed mitigation measures and resulting net effects, of the preferred alternative is provided in Table 6.1. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the net effects of the proposed undertaking is also provided in Section 6.2 of the EA.

Section 8 of the EA details the impact management measures, monitoring and contingency plans proposed by GAR in accordance with the commitments in the ToR. The mitigation measures are commitments that GAR has made to ensure that potential negative effects of the undertaken are reduced and that potential positive effects of the undertaking are enhanced.

3.2.1 Key issues

Key issues regarding the EA process completed by GAR for the proposed undertaking were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. Some concerns were raised by the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities during the seven-week comment period following formal submission of the EA. These submissions can be found in Appendix B. All comments received, including GAR's responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1-3.

During the review of the draft EA, staff from the ministry raised a number of concerns regarding the level of detail, flow, and clarity of the EA document. These concerns are documented in the Record of Consultation along with details on how GAR addressed the concerns.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, 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. GAR 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 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 ministry 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 3.2 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. Some issues were raised by the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities. These submissions can be found in Appendix B. All comments, including GAR's responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1-3.

Ministry technical reviewers raised a concern about the frequency of groundwater monitoring due to the fact that malfunctioning of the leachate collection system in recent years was not detected with the existing semi-annual groundwater monitoring program. Staff indicated that some key monitoring stations/wells should be equipped with continuous monitoring devices. In response, GAR has indicated that it is in agreement with the recommendation that key monitoring stations/wells will be equipped with continuous monitoring devices and that the data will be reviewed in a timely manner to assess and identify any potential malfunctions of the leachate collection system.

Ministry technical reviewers also indicated that since this landfill receives industrial wastes, monitoring only the common landfill indicator parameters without a leachate characterization may not be sufficient to assess the potential impact of this landfill. The monitoring parameters should not be finalized before a leachate characterization is completed. The ministry recommended that a full characterization of the leachate be conducted at least in two different scenarios (i.e. dry season and wet season following a spring freshet) to identify the contaminants of concern. The parameters in the proposed monitoring program will then need to be updated based on the leachate characterization. The ministry requested that GAR commit to conduct a full leachate characterization and prepare the list of contaminants of concern, which will be reviewed at the ECA approval stage. GAR has indicated that they agree with the recommendation to complete a full characterization of the leachate and refine the list of contaminants of concern for the monitoring program. The monitoring parameters can then be finalized during the final design stage as part of the ECA approval process.

With respect to impacts on surface water, ministry technical reviewers indicated that based on the existing ECA, water quality sampling is required after every storm event causing 0.15 metre deep of accumulated ponding water and prior to discharge. Currently, it is not clear what measurements are being applied to measure the ponding water in these ponds. As a result, the potential long-term impact of the onsite stormwater infiltration on the groundwater quality should have been included in the hydrogeological report. GAR responded and indicated that the hydrogeological assessment included a review of the water quality down gradient of the storm water pond areas. GAR also committed to undertaking a pond water balance analysis during the detail design phase of the project.

3.3.2 Conclusion

GAR has provided responses to all comments received, including those not detailed above. All comments and the proponent’s responses are located in Tables 1-3 of this Review.

Ministry staff are satisfied that GAR 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 1-3.

The ministry is also satisfied that the landfill expansion will be designed and operated to comply with ministry’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 GAR in support of future approval applications.

During the final review period and prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Minister about this EA, conditions specific to the proposed undertaking may be proposed to ensure the environment remains protected. These specific conditions may include, but are not limited to:

  • Confirming commitments made by GAR with respect to monitoring potential impacts to surface and/or ground water
  • Detailing requirements for notification when/if GAR decides there is an opportunity to excavate landfilled materials
  • Detailing requirements regarding the development and management of a new Site Liaison Committee

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis of GAR's EA for a proposed landfill expansion and excavation.

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 ministry is satisfied that GAR provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, public, stakeholders, and Aboriginal communities to comment during the development of the EA. Concerns raised by the GRT regarding technical issues have been addressed by GAR 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 imposed 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 ministry 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, ministry 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 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 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, GAR will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 9.0 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

  • Environmental Compliance Approval under the EPA (Section 9: air & noise and Section 27: waste disposal site) for the landfill expansion and excavation
  • Approval under the Ontario Water Resources Act (Section 53: sewage works) for the proposed stormwater retention ponds
  • Zoning by-law amendments under the Planning Act
  • Regional Official Plan amendment under the Planning Act

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

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 Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario

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

Ministry of the Environment
York-Durham District Office
230 Westney Road south, 5th floor
Ajax, Ontario
L1S 7J5

Town Hall Town of Whitby
575 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 2M8

Whitby Central Library
405 Dundas Street West
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 6A1

Rossland Branch Library
701 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 8Y9

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending October 19, 2012 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
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Gerdau Ameristeel Recycling Environmental Assessment
Attention: Charlene Cressman, Special 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.