Ministry review of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility environmental assessment

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

This review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. 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 environmental assessment and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Indigenous communities into consideration.

Summary of our review

Who

Terrapure Environmental

What

Terrapure is proposing to increase the capacity for solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, by 3.68 million cubic metres (m³).

When

Environmental assessment submitted: January 11, 2019

Where

65 Green Mountain Road West, Stoney Creek, Ontario

Why

The Stoney Creek Landfill Site is approaching its approved capacity of 6,500,000 m³. The increase in capacity would allow Terrapure to continue to provide disposal capacity for industrial, commercial and institutional residual material generated within the Province of Ontario for approximately 10 to 15 years before reaching capacity.

Conclusions

The ministry review concludes that the environmental assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with the approved terms of reference (ToR) and contains sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proponent’s undertaking. The EA demonstrated that Terrapure will be able to meet the objectives set out in its ToR. The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks must decide whether or not to approve the EA.

The ministry is considering recommending conditions of approval including further consultation and reporting requirements for dust management planning, odour management and truck monitoring.

1. Environmental assessment process

The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) provides 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 EAA sets out the general requirements for the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA), as well as the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ (MECP/ministry) 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, built, 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.

Environmental assessments may:

• identify a problem or opportunity
• consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity
• evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives
• select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives

The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the undertaking. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Indigenous communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. If the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and guidelines of the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

Completing the EA process involves two separate steps—the terms of reference (ToR) and the EA. The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a ToR to the MECP for review and a decision. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

The ToR for the expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) submitted by Terrapure Environmental (Terrapure) provided for a focussed EA is pursuant to sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EAA. This allowed the proponent to focus the assessment in the EA on providing a process to identify and assess alternative designs (alternative methods) for increasing landfill capacity. The reason provided is that it would be economically unfeasible for Terrapure, a private proponent, to establish a new landfill site or employ an alternative to landfilling.

On November 9, 2017, the former Minister of the Environment and Climate Change approved Terrapure’s ToR with amendments. The amendments require Terrapure to examine the feasibility and viability of an on-site diversion program as part of the EA process. The ToR established the framework for the preparation of the EA, including describing the purpose and the rationale for the undertaking; identifying and evaluating potential environmental effects (both positive and negative), as well as a consultation plan for obtaining input from the public, government agencies and Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA

1.2 Environmental assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the 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 completed the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and a decision.

On January 11, 2019, Terrapure submitted the Stoney Creek Regional Facility landfill expansion EA (SCRF EA) to the ministry and made the EA available for a seven-week public comment period. The comment period ended on March 1, 2019. During this period, Indigenous communities and the public had an opportunity to review the EA and submit comments to the ministry. The EA was also circulated to the Government Review Team (GRT) for review. The GRT, comprised of provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid based on the mandates of each respective agency. Terrapure amended their EA to reflect some of the incoming comments during the review period and made further commitments, details of the commitments can be found in section 3.3 of this review and on Terrapure’s website. All comments received by the ministry during this formal comment period are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the proposed undertaking.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the ministry review (review). The review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA and any amendments thereto. The purpose of the review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and 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 comment period allows the GRT, the public and Indigenous 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 was issued indicating that this 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 electronic copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Indigenous communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period have also received electronic copies of the review.

2. The proposed undertaking

2.1 Background

The Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) is situated on a 185.5-acre parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Mud Street and Upper Centennial Parkway (Highway 20) in the community of Upper Stoney Creek.

The SCRF first received approval under the Environmental Assessment Act in 1996 and operated as the Taro East Landfill owned by the former industrial division of Newalta Corporation, which was acquired by Terrapure Environmental (Terrapure) in March 2015.

The site receives solid, non-hazardous residual materials from industrial, commercial and institutional sources that have exhausted all recycling options. These materials include residues from local steelmaking and other industrial operations, excavation materials from industrial sites, construction/demolition materials, and rubble, primarily from the Hamilton area. However, the site is currently allowed to receive waste from anywhere in Ontario.

The landfill is designed as an engineered site and has a double liner system, which includes a natural clay liner and a single geosynthetic membrane liner to mitigate leachate and manage leachate collection. The site does not receive municipal garbage.

The site is permitted to receive 750,000 tonnes of material annually, taking in a combination of residual material and industrial soils, or "fill" with a total permitted capacity of 6.5 million m³. The site is permitted to receive up to 250 trucks per day.

2.2 Purpose

Terrapure is proposing to increase the capacity for solid, non-hazardous industrial, commercial and institutional materials at the SCRF by 3.68 million cubic metres (m³) to take advantage of the economic opportunity, as identified in a business case analysis completed in 2017.

2.3 Study area

Two study areas, a local and site study area, were defined for the SCRF EA for the purposes of describing the environment in greater detail, based on a review of the preliminary study area (see Figure 1).

A local study area extends 1.5 kilometres (km) from the four roads that border the existing SCRF, Upper Centennial Parkway to the east, Mud Street West to the south, First Road West to the west, and Green Mountain Road West to the north.

The limits of the local study area were tailored, as appropriate, to more accurately correspond to the specific component of the environment being described (for example noise, traffic and land use). In these situations, a rationale for a tailored limit has been provided in the EA as part of describing that environmental component.

The site study area includes all lands within the existing approved boundaries of the SCRF, as well as the existing industrial fill area (18 hectares) and the buffer zone (approximately 15 hectares).

2.4 Local environment

The nearest residential dwelling (under construction as part of a larger residential development) is approximately 35 metres north of the existing landfill boundary. There are approximately 5,800 residential dwellings (built, under construction or approved) within the local study area.

The existing landfill is located within the fractured bedrock near the Niagara Escarpment, in a former quarry. The prominent geologic feature in the local study area is the Niagara Escarpment, located approximately 800 metres to the north of the site study area.

The area is serviced by the municipal drinking water system derived from an intake located within Lake Ontario. The majority of the local study area is located outside the limit of the Intake Protection Zone.

Other notable features in the local study area include:

• the Stoney/Battlefield Creek watershed
• a naturally significant forested area
• golf and recreational areas (including parks and dog parks)
• commercial properties
• churches
• nursing home
• schools (including one school within 500 metres of the site and an additional planned school within the study area)

2.5 Description of the proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking involves the construction and operation of a reconfigured and vertically expanded landfill. The site would no longer be approved to receive industrial fill, but only post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial, commercial and institutional residual material. This would result in an increase of approved capacity up to 10.18 million m³.

The approved ToR for the SCRF EA identified six alternative methods for landfill footprints that would be evaluated in the EA. A detailed description of each alternative landfill footprint is described in sections 5.1.2 to 5.1.7 of the final EA report. Each preferred alternative footprint included details on:

• site capacity and fill rate
• footprint size
• final contours and slopes
• peak elevation and height
• buffer areas
• setbacks to surrounding developments
• infrastructure requirements
• groundwater
• leachate management
• stormwater management
• gas management
• traffic
• operations

The preferred landfill footprint consists of a combination of reconfiguration and vertical expansion of the SCRF (see Figure 3). The footprint area for residual material, which is currently 41.5 hectares would increase to 59.1 hectares, however the overall landfill footprint will not change. The peak elevation would increase from 218.5 to 221.0 metres above mean sea-level (AMSL). A minimum of 30-metre buffer would be established around the area for receiving post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial, commercial and institutional material. Over the life of the expanded landfill, it is expected that there would be approximately 78,481 trucks associated with construction of the landfill and 282,077 trucks associated with residual material.

With respect to stormwater management, drainage ditches would be modified and placed around the perimeter of the new residual material area. In addition, the existing stormwater management ponds in the northwest corner of the site would be reconfigured, and the discharge point from the stormwater pond would be maintained to the First Road West storm sewer.

The existing leachate collection system at the base of residual material area would be extended. Leachate collection would be located at the existing leachate pumping station in the southeast corner of the residual material area and be discharged to an existing/new sanitary sewer for municipal treatment.

Timing

With the proposed expansion, it is anticipated that the operating stage of the SCRF would be between approximately 10 to 15 years before reaching capacity. Landfilling of residual material will take place in the existing landfill area before progressing to the south, east, and northwest corner.

The SCRF will be developed in stages to accommodate capacity demands, regulatory requirements, and operating conditions (described in chapter 6 of the EA).

If closure is pursued at the end of the current planning horizon, post-closure activities are expected to last for a minimum of 25 years immediately following the closure of the site. During the post-closure stage, the following activities would occur:

• application of final cover (vegetative)
• removal of existing Site infrastructure (for example scale facility, maintenance area, wheelwash facility, site office, site access)
• maintenance of leachate collection system
• maintain and keep in place the infrastructure required to monitor (long-term) groundwater and surface water
• flexibility of post-closure design with uniform grading

The decommissioning of the site would be carried out in accordance with Ontario Regulation 232/98 (Landfilling Sites), which includes the requirement to develop a Closure Plan for approval by the ministry. The Closure Plan must be prepared by Terrapure when the SCRF has reached 90 percent of its approved capacity, or two years of remaining capacity (whichever comes first).

Figure 1: Project location/study area

View a larger version of this map (PNG)

This map displays the site study area and the local study area in relation to the site location, major roads, and local residential areas. Two study areas have been defined for the SCRF. The local study area extends 1.5 kilometres from the four roads bordering the existing site. The site study area is defined within the border of the existing approved boundary of the SCRF.

Figure 2: Current approved landfill

View a larger version of this map (PNG)

This map shows a breakdown of the current approved landfill site. A legend is provided to identify different components of the current approved landfill footprint. The property boundary and the contours are represented with lines. Areas are colour-coded to identify the landfill areas for residual and industrial materials.

Figure 3: Preferred landfill footprint

View a larger version of this map (PNG)

This figure shows a breakdown of the preferred landfill footprint. A legend is provided to identify different components of the preferred landfill footprint. The property boundary and the proposed contours (top of residual/fill) are represented with lines. Areas are colour-coded to identify the residual material fill areas and the buffer areas.

3. 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 outline the EA planning process and demonstrate how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the Government Review Team (GRT) and, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the approved ToR have been met. The ministry has concluded that the EA followed the framework outlined in the approved ToR and has addressed the commitments made in the approved ToR.

Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the approved ToR requirements have been addressed in the EA. Conditions of approval may be proposed to ensure continued consultation, as described in section 3.3 of this review.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is consultation 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 to the ministry and must be in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the approved ToR.

The proponent established a comprehensive consultation program involving review agencies, Indigenous communities, the public, and interested stakeholders. The consultation program outlined five key decision-making milestone points where consultation would specifically occur during the preparation of the SCRF EA (Refer to Section 7.2 of the SCRF EA). A summary of consultation activities undertaken by the proponent included:

• conducting four GRT Webinars, three SCRF EA open houses (in-person and online), and one Community Liaison Committee (CLC) Workshop
• holding individual meetings, phone calls, and correspondence with agencies, interested persons and Indigenous communities
• circulation of the draft and final SCRF EA report to agencies, public stakeholders and Indigenous communities for comments

Terrapure also undertook consultation activities that lasted the duration of the EA to engage all participant groups. This included:

• updates to the project website
• engagement on social media (Facebook and Twitter)
• educational videos on the project, the SCRF environmental protection and waste acceptance process
• media relations
• a dedicated project-specific toll-free number

In accordance with the requirements of subsection 6.1(2) of the Environmental Assessment Act, consultation activities are described in Section 7 of the final SCRF EA. A full record of consultation is documented in Volume 3, in Appendices A to O (Record of Consultation) of the SCRF EA report.

Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry-driven consultation occurs during the EA review and comment period, which began on January 11, 2019 and ended on March 1, 2019. The GRT, the public and affected Indigenous communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the approved ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking.

All comments received by the ministry during the EA review period were forwarded to Terrapure for responses. Summaries of the all comments received, along with the proponent’s responses are included in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of this review.

Government Review Team (GRT)

During the ToR stage, Terrapure consulted broadly with 18 review agencies, including federal departments, provincial ministries and agencies, and regional and local agencies. From the review agencies contacted, only 12 responded with interest in the preparation of the SCRF EA. A list of review agencies involved in the preparation of the EA is included as Table 7.1 in the EA report.

From the 12 agencies consulted during the preparation of the EA, the following were substantially interested in the project:

• City of Hamilton (the City)
• Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board (HWCDSB)
• Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB)
• Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)
• Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (the ministry)

Consultation with the GRT during the preparation of the EA included pre-submission discussions, technical meetings with ministry staff, four webinars, and 22 individual meetings. A summary of the consultation activities with members of the GRT during the EA preparation, with the received comments and responses is provided in Section 7.4 of the SCRF EA report. A full record of consultation with GRT is documented in Appendices A and B in Volume 3 of the SCRF EA report.

The draft SCRF EA report was made available on August 31, 2018 to the GRT for a 7-week comment period, which ended on October 24, 2018. The City, HWCDSB, OMAFRA and the ministry provided comments on the draft report. A summary of comments on the draft report is provided in Table 7.7 under Section 7.10 of the final SCRF EA report.

Following the formal submission of the EA to the ministry, GRT members were provided copies of the final EA for a final review during the seven-week review period. All comments received by the ministry during the EA review period were forwarded to the proponent for a response and included as Table 1 and summarized in section 3.3 in this review.

Public

Public stakeholders consulted throughout the preparation of the EA included:

• property owners, residents, and businesses located within the SCRF study area
• members of the public who expressed interest in the project
• City of Hamilton Councillors
• Members of Parliament
• Members of Provincial Parliament
• representatives on the Community Liaison Committee (CLC)
• non-government and community-based organizations
• Terrapure customers and vendors

A full record of consultation with public stakeholders during the preparation of the EA is included in Appendices H to J, in Volume 3 of the SCRF EA report.

The proponent conducted a variety of public consultation activities throughout the EA process, including phone calls, email correspondence, three Public Open Houses (both in-person and online) and CLC Workshop, and circulation of draft and final SCRF EA report. A summary of the public consultation carried out during the preparation of the EA can be found in Section 7.6 of the SCRF EA report.

The Terrapure SCRF CLC is comprised of citizen members from the local community surrounding the facility, representatives of Terrapure, the City of Hamilton, and the ministry. Meetings are held quarterly to discuss the site’s operations as part of its existing permit. At key decision-making milestones, the CLC will be offered an opportunity by the proponent to hold special Workshops for in-depth discussion of project issues, and act as a conduit with the local community. On December 4, 2017, the CLC requested an additional workshop meeting to discuss the proposed undertaking in advance of the Public Open House #1 (Refer to Volume 3, Appendix J of the SCRF EA report).

Members of the public had an opportunity to review and comment on the EA following the formal submission of the final SCRF EA report to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry were forwarded to the proponent for a response and included in Table 2 and summarized in section 3.3 of this review.

Indigenous communities

In addition to the EAA requirement that interested persons be consulted, proponents are required to consult with Indigenous communities who have credibly asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights that may be negatively impacted by the proposed undertaking. The proponent identified a list of the following Indigenous communities with particular interest to the project for continued consultation throughout the EA process:

• Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), on behalf of Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC)
• Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO)
• Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation (MNCFN)
• Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation (Six Nations)

Terrapure attempted in good faith to resolve concerns raised on the EA to ensure a mutually agreeable resolution during the preparation of the EA. Engagement with Indigenous communities is documented in Appendices C to F in Volume 3 of the SCRF EA report. Consultations with Indigenous communities were carried out individually to acknowledge each community’s distinct interests. Input from each community was obtained through individual meetings, phone calls, and written and email correspondence. The Indigenous communities were contacted at key decision-making milestones during the preparation of the EA and were provided with copies of the Notice of Commencement, the draft SCRF EA report and the final SCRF EA report.

The draft SCRF EA report was made available to the Indigenous communities for a 7-week comment period, which ended on October 24, 2018. The HDI/HCCC and MNCFN provided substantial comments on the draft EA report. A summary of comments from the Indigenous communities on the draft report is provided in Table 7.8 under Section 7.10 of the SCRF EA report.

Following the formal submission of the final SCRF EA report, a 7-week review and comment period was initiated. All comments from the Indigenous communities received by the ministry were forwarded to the proponent for a response and included as Table 3 and summarized in section 3.3 of this review.

3.1.3 Conclusion

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 proponent’s EA adequately describes the consultation that was undertaken and the outcomes of the various consultation activities/events. The EA documents how input received throughout the consultation program influenced the study, and ultimately the preferred alternative. The proponent has undertaken a fulsome consultation program as part of the EA.

The ministry is satisfied that the level of consultation undertaken with the public, Indigenous communities and GRT was appropriate for this proposed undertaking.

Overall, the ministry believes that the proponent has provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders, government agencies and Indigenous communities to be consulted during the preparation and finalization of the EA. The proponent has committed to continue to engage Indigenous communities, interested stakeholder groups through a Community Liaison Committee, and agencies during detailed design, construction and operation phases of the proposed undertaking.

The ministry is satisfied that the consultation undertaken is consistent with the Code of Practice for Consultation in Ontario’s EA Process and best practices, meets the requirements of the EAA, and is consistent with the approved ToR.

3.2 EA process

Environmental assessment 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 environmental effects of alternatives against select criteria, and to select a preferred alternative.

In accordance with the approved ToR, the EA included a description of the purpose and rationale for the undertaking in Section 3 of the SCRF EA report, as well as a description of the existing environment in Section 4 considering the broad environment as required under the EAA.

In general, Terrapure followed a logical and transparent decision-making process. Below is a summary of the EA process followed, including the study areas used, and the methodology for assessing alternatives and environmental effects. Please refer to Appendix A of this review for the ministry’s analysis of how the EA has met the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR.

3.2.1 Focused EA

In the ToR, Terrapure identified that it would undertake a focused EA to evaluate options to provide 3.68 million m³ of additional waste disposal capacity to continue to operate the SCRF. The proponent’s rationale for seeking additional waste disposal capacity was through the completion of a business case analysis. The business case analysis identified an economic opportunity for landfilling of post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial, commercial and institutional residual materials.

The ToR identified the following six alternative methods (Alternative Landfill Footprints) with the commitment that they would be elaborated upon in detail and consulted on during the preparation of the EA prior to their finalization:

• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 1: Reconfiguration of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility
• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 2: Horizontal Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility
• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 3: Vertical Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility
• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 4: Reconfiguration and Horizontal Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility
• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 5: Reconfiguration and Vertical Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility
• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 6: Horizontal and Vertical Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility

The “Do Nothing” alternative was included in the EA to represent the benchmark against which the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative landfill footprints being considered can be compared.

The EA completed by Terrapure focused on the development and assessment of alternative methods of expanding the SCRF.

3.2.1.1 Assessment of alternative methods

Terrapure has developed evaluation criteria and indicators to assess the impacts of alternatives on the following environmental components:

The natural environment, which included:

• geology and hydrology
• surface water
• terrestrial and aquatic
• atmospheric environment, including air, odor and noise

The built environment, which included:

• land use

The social environment, which included:

• traffic
• neighbourhood and community character
• human health

The economic environment which included:

• local employment, labour supply and economic base

The cultural environment which included:

• archeology and built heritage

Terrapure also compared alternatives using the “technical environment” which is described in Section 5, Table 5.2 as a sixth component. The technical environment considers the complexity, flexibility and cost of the design and operations of the facility.

Terrapure completed evaluation of the net effect analysis of the six expansion alternatives on the six environmental components listed above.

The “net effects analysis” was applied to each of the alternative landfill footprints based on expert opinion and analysis from the project team, a literature review of secondary sources, field investigations of the study area and predictive modelling for several of the environmental components.

Once the net effects were determined, the alternative landfill footprints were evaluated using a “Reasoned Argument” methodology to select a recommended landfill footprint as specified in the approved ToR. Specifically, the methodology identified the advantages or disadvantages of each alternative landfill footprint based on its’ net effects.

Overall, there were little differences in net effects between the alternatives on most environmental components except for impacts on views of the facility, economic benefit to the City of Hamilton and technical complexity. Alternative footprint 5, Reconfiguration and Vertical Expansion of the SCRF, was selected as the preferred footprint because it ranked highest in the technical environment category from a design and operations perspective.

3.2.1.2 Assessment of environmental effects

Terrapure evaluated the potential effects of the Reconfiguration and Vertical Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility landfill within the existing property boundaries and study area for specific environmental components. The prediction of potential effects considered the environmental components and associated evaluation criteria listed in the approved ToR and the EA.

Overall, the proponent determined that there would be no net negative effects to surface water, groundwater quality and flow as base liners, leachate and stormwater management measures will be implemented. Predicted effects on vegetation communities, wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat and biota will be mitigated.

Terrapure committed to working with the ministry to protect species during operations and incorporate naturalized landscape features into the stormwater management facilities.

The proponent identified the potential for low net effects to air quality affecting off-site receptors. The application of dust best management practices, in addition to the reduction in daily vehicle limits and to the speed limit, will mitigate effects. No net effects to odours affecting off-site receptors are anticipated. Net effects to noise affecting off-site receptors are anticipated to be low upon implementation of management measures that will include the installation of berms at the landfill perimeter to the north.

Moderate net effects to views of the facility are anticipated. Installation of visual screening elements, such as vegetation, fencing, or berms, will minimize views of the facility from the surrounding community.

No effects to road user safety or intersection level of service as a result of truck traffic are anticipated in the local study area.

The proponent identified that no net effects to human health resulting from predicted effects to leachate quantity, groundwater quality, surface water quality, or soil quantity are anticipated. Low net effects to human health resulting from effects to air quality are anticipated. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions would be equivalent to the existing approved landfill design, where concentrations are expected to be below heath-based benchmarks. Ongoing monitoring of the existing particulate/dust control impact management measures will be in place to confirm compliance with ambient guidelines.

No net negative effects to the economic and cultural environments are anticipated. Terrapure also noted that no net effects to Indigenous resources are anticipated as a result of the project. However, Terrapure identified high net positive effects on economic benefits to the City of Hamilton and the local community. If approved, the total economic activity is expected to range between $349 million and $372 million and an estimated 665 direct and indirect jobs over the life of the landfill.

3.2.2 Cumulative effects assessment

A cumulative effects assessment of the proposed undertaking was carried out as part of the EA in accordance with the approved ToR. The cumulative effects assessment of the proposed undertaking considered other projects/activities that are existing, planned/approved or reasonably foreseeable within the local study area.

After application of mitigation measures, cumulative effects were identified as only having minor or moderate adverse effects, which are considered not significant, on two components: landscape composition and use and enjoyment of private property.

Effective mitigation of potential cumulative effects can be achieved by ensuring that all future development meets the broader planning objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and policies set out in the City of Hamilton’s official plan.

3.2.3 Climate change

In accordance with the approved ToR, the Alternative Landfill Footprints were reviewed from a climate change adaptation and mitigation perspective. The proponent referenced the MECP's guide for Consideration of Climate Change in Environmental Assessment in Ontario (the Guide) for the assessment of climate change in its final EA.

Air quality

The SCRF receives primarily non-hazardous industrial, commercial and institutional fill with very little waste containing organics, such as municipal solid waste. As a result, the potential to produce methane and other greenhouse gases is significantly lower than a municipal solid waste landfill of the same size.

Terrapure committed to a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential for effects to air quality including:

• implement and enforce an anti-idling policy for all vehicles and machinery on-site during the construction stage and operation stage
• try to use materials that have a lower carbon footprint and a long lifespan
• reduce the size of the uncovered/working area
• replace and plant additional vegetation to create a carbon sink

Extreme weather

Extreme and adverse weather could affect site operations. As an example, an increase in storm events could affect the effectiveness of the facilities and systems that have been engineered for the site, such as the stormwater management system. Furthermore, extreme weather events could also cause potential power outages, physical damage and reduced access to the site.

The proponent has committed to adaptation measures that are aimed at strengthening and increasing the resiliency of the landfill cover and leachate management system. Such measures may include:

• choosing vegetation known to withstand erosion and climatic stressors such as extreme heat
• planting additional vegetation every 5 to 10 years
• modifying the existing stormwater management ponds, if necessary to better accommodate extreme weather events

3.2.4 Leachate treatment

A commitment to carry out an assessment of the existing leachate collection and treatment system was made in the ToR. An assessment of the existing leachate collection was completed as part of the alternative assessment evaluation for each alternative footprint.

Leachate discharge was assumed for all footprints to be via the sanitary sewer for treatment at the City of Hamilton’s wastewater treatment plant. An existing agreement established with the City of Hamilton outlines requirements regarding the quantity and quality of the leachate that can be discharged from the site. The agreement will be revised as required through consultation with the City of Hamilton to ensure that the treatment system is able to handle the leachate discharged.

3.2.5 On-site diversion

An on-site diversion program was examined and evaluated as part of the SCRF EA in accordance with the approved ToR. The examination/evaluation of an on-site diversion program has considered and assessed a reasonable number of ways to divert the types of waste materials typically received at the SCRF.

Terrapure has standard operating procedures which dictate the materials that can be received at the landfill to ensure that the material received cannot otherwise be diverted or reintroduced into the circular economy.

At this time, most of the solutions for diverting residual industrial, commercial and institutional waste, are still not considered financially viable by the proponent.

Terrapure will continue to investigate emerging technologies for potential diversion options, both on-site and off-site as more information becomes available. Terrapure committed in its EA to continue to review the reduce, reuse and recycle (three Rs) technology with respect to landfill diversion every five years. Terrapure will also continue to work with its customers to ensure diversion at the source of the generated material takes place. Terrapure will monitor the introduction of regulations that may assist in creating more financially viable diversion tools, as well as the establishment of viable end-markets for the diverted material.

3.2.6 Monitoring and commitments

Terrapure is proposing to monitor environmental components, including geology and hydrology, surface water resources, terrestrial and aquatic, air quality (including dust) and odour, noise and land use (refer to Table 8.1) to confirm that predicted net effects identified in the EA are not exceeded, unexpected negative effects are addressed, and the mitigation measures implemented are sufficient.

Table 8.3 in Chapter 8 of the EA outlines commitments to future work and consultation including environmental monitoring for the proposed undertaking. The commitments include compliance monitoring, archaeology commitments, human health and consultation.

3.2.7 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 and previous studies that prompted the EA and the opportunities that can be realized as part the proposed undertaking. A reasonable range of alternatives were considered for the project, consistent with the project objectives, and it is evident that public and government agency input were considered in the evaluation and selection of these alternatives.

The EA provides a description of the potentially affected environment in the study area and identifies the potential effects of the alternatives. Net effects are identified in the EA and commitments to monitoring are made to ensure any potential negative effects from the undertaking are minimized.

The EA adequately described the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking to the environment based on potential net environmental effects. Requirements of the EAA for consultation with the public, GRT and Indigenous communities have been met. The ministry is satisfied that the SCRF EA has been completed in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA.

3.3 Comments on the undertaking

3.3.1 Key issues

Issues and concerns from the GRT, public and Indigenous communities regarding the proposed undertaking were received by MECP during the review and comment period that followed the submission of the EA. All comments received, along with the responses provided by Terrapure, are included in Tables 1, 2 and 3 in Appendix B of this review. This section summarizes the key issues that were raised during the EA process.

3.3.1.1 Government Review Team comments

Members of the Government Review Team (GRT) that provided comments on the SCRF EA submission include Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP/ministry), the City of Hamilton (the City), and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB). For more information on the proponent’s responses to these comments and the ministry’s conclusions, refer to Table 1 of Appendix B in this review.

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

The ministry provided substantial comments on the draft EA that was submitted by Terrapure. Terrapure addressed all those incoming comments in the final EA to the satisfaction of the ministry.

The ministry noted that the groundwater concerns raised by the City of Hamilton below would need to be addressed. In response, Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

City of Hamilton

The formal position of the City of Hamilton (City) council remains opposed to the expansion and reconfiguration of the SCRF.

The City suggested that the proponent should provide greater clarity on the likelihood of on-site operations affecting downgradient groundwater quality onto neighbouring private property. Monitoring and mitigation of potential impacts should be incorporated into this discussion. Future development on downgradient property (and the subsequent need for potential dewatering for land development) increases groundwater quality risks to these downgradient properties. The City suggested that attempts should be made to re-establish a relationship with residents who have historically refused to participate in the monitoring program to ensure no off-site impacts are occurring. Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The City requested that the MECP impose a condition to require Terrapure to enter into negotiations and subsequently an agreement with the City to update and improve the host community compensation terms. Terrapure has committed to continuing discussions with the City of Hamilton on the compensation agreement. The ministry is satisfied with this commitment.

The City of Hamilton will not allow Terrapure’s use of Green Mountain Road for access to the site. The City recommends a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework that would include truck driver training and awareness, monitoring and evaluation. Terrapure will continue to enter the site from Upper Centennial Parkway, and exit through First Road West, continuing to avoid Green Mountain Road. Terrapure has Health and Safety policies for operations at the SCRF including truck operations and driving. It should be noted that not all of the vehicles that access the site are under the control of Terrapure (i.e. third party haulers). Terrapure responded that it can discuss the existing Health and Safety policies further with the City.

Terrapure has amended the EA to include a commitment to prepare a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework describing proposed driver training and awareness strategies, in consultation with the City of Hamilton; and to maintain the Framework during construction and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to require the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization; as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized.

An updated commitments list is provided on the proponent’s website.

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board

The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board re-submitted its comments from the ToR process. The school board plans to build an elementary school near the northwest corner of the site. The school board has identified potential effects to air quality (including dust), noise, odour, groundwater, traffic, and visual aesthetics to the proposed elementary school.

Terrapure responded noting mitigation measures committed to in the EA for the identified concerns from the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board. This includes a dust mitigation plan, a semi-annual noise monitoring plan, groundwater monitors, visual screening methods, and annual monitoring reports. The proponent has also cited reports and impact assessments completed during the EA process to outline the potential risk or non-risk posed by components including traffic, odour and site design.

The ministry is considering a condition to require the preparation of odour and dust management plans to be submitted with the ECA application to ensure ongoing odour and dust best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed, including requirements for the proponent to consult with the CLC, City of Hamilton and the Hamilton School boards in the development of the dust and odour management and mitigation plans.

The ministry is also considering a condition that would require the proponent to invite both local school boards to be a part of the CLC.

3.3.1.2 Public stakeholders’ comments

A total of 46 members of the public, local businesses and business representatives submitted comments to the ministry.

The comments from the public were made in respect to opposition of the landfill, land use and residential development, closure planning, odour management and monitoring, impacts to the environment and surrounding community, visual impacts, stakeholder consultation, human health, and the 2013 Environmental Compliance Approval (2013 ECA).

Eleven (11) letters of support of the proposed expansion of the SCRF were received by the ministry from local businesses and their representatives, who are clients of the SCRF and rely on Terrapure for waste disposal.

The existing Community Liaison Committee (CLC) sent a letter expressing that they are not in support of expanding the landfill. However, one member of the CLC wrote independently to express the support of expanding the SCRF.

A summary of public stakeholders’ comments is provided in Table 2 under Appendix B of this review. The key issues that the public identified include:

2013 environmental compliance amendment

A number of public comments received by the ministry cited concerns with a commitment made in 2013 during an amendment to the ECA to revise the site design. The commitments were made from the former owner of the facility, Newalta Corporation, and identified key benefits of this re-design to the community, which included less leachate into the sewer and less required construction on the existing footprint, as well as further set-back from the community and a flexible after-life of the site, in exchange for an overall height increase of the landfill.

The public expressed concerns that the current owner, Terrapure, was not fulfilling these commitments made in 2013, and many believed that the site design changes would also facilitate an early closure.

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments as a result of the expansion of the site (refer to Table 2 in Appendix B of this review). The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the approved ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Aesthetic view

The public is concerned that with the increase in height to the landfill, the impacts to the aesthetic view would contribute to a loss of property value.

Terrapure responded that visual screen methods, including fencing, berms and tree planting will be used to mitigate visual impact from the increased height of the site. Terrapure also expanded that these methods and the potential visual impacts were assessed during the EA stage, and these screening components will be in addition to pre-existing components at the site.

The ministry is satisfied with the commitment for the mitigation measures identified above by Terrapure to mitigate visual impacts.

Odour

Public comments received by the ministry indicate that residents are concerned with odour from the landfill. The ministry is considering a condition of approval that would require the preparation of odour and dust management and mitigation plans to ensure ongoing odour and dust management best practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed.

Proximity to residential areas

The public is concerned that since the site’s original approval, the surrounding area has become more populated with residential homes in close proximity to the landfill. Further growth of the residential areas is expected during the life of the project.

Terrapure responded that the potential effects of the site on future approved or planned uses of nearby lands were considered in the EA. The proponent noted existing impact management measures, such as berms, buffers, mitigation measures for noise, dust, and odour, and other visual screening methods will continue to be employed at the site. Terrapure also indicated that the EA had considered the City of Hamilton’s future planned land uses, including a planned subdivision of approximately 1,000 homes, during the EA process.

The final end use of the site would reflect the City of Hamilton land use planning controls, which currently intends for the site to be used for open space and/or recreational uses.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The ministry is considering recommending a condition to ensure that the local community liaison committee continues through construction and operation of the landfill.

Traffic

Comments received by the ministry indicate that members of the public who live near the landfill, or have identified roadways used for trucking, have expressed dissatisfaction with the site’s impact on local traffic. Similar concerns were shared by the City of Hamilton, which have been stated in a previous section of this review.

Terrapure responded that the potential effects on traffic from the project have been evaluated in the EA. The proponent notes that, since the volume of waste will not change as a result of the undertaking, no effect on traffic is expected. Terrapure also notes existing measures to monitor the effects on traffic, including inspections and washes for trucks entering and exiting the site.

Terrapure has amended the EA to include a commitment to prepare a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework describing proposed driver training and awareness strategies, in consultation with the City of Hamilton; and to maintain the Framework during construction and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to require the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization; as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized.

3.3.1.3 Indigenous community comments

The Mississauga’s of the New Credit First Nation were the only Indigenous community to provide feedback during the 7-week comment period. Ministry staff sent emails and left voice mails for all the other identified communities to ensure they had no further comments.

The comments from the Mississauga’s of the New Credit First Nation were addressed by Terrapure by modifying commitments in the EA related to further consultation with Indigenous communities to include more precise language and promote meaningful consultation.

At the request of the Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation a link to the EA was sent to the contact, and no further comments were received. No other Indigenous communities submitted comments on the final EA.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent provided sufficient responses to the concerns noted and that they will continue to engage with the identified communities throughout the detailed design and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to include a requirement for an Indigenous consultation plan to be prepared in consultation with Indigenous communities that outlines how the proponent will consult with Indigenous communities throughout the life of the landfill.

3.3.2 Conclusion

Ministry staff are satisfied that the proposed SCRF will be designed and constructed in compliance with the ministry’s standards and that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can be managed through the commitments made in the EA and recommended conditions of approval or through future approval applications, if the undertaking as described in the EA is approved. Ministry staff are satisfied with the proponent’s consultation efforts and commitments to address outstanding concerns.

4. Summary of the ministry review

The review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the proposed expansion of the SCRF.

This review concludes that the EA:

• complies with the requirements of the approved ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA
• has provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking
• 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, assessed the advantages and disadvantages of the preferred alternative, and provides a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking

The MECP is satisfied that Terrapure has provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities to comment during the development of the EA. Concerns raised by the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities have been considered by Terrapure, or a commitment has been made to continue to consider concerns through further discussions, commitments and future permitting and approval processes.

If approval of the undertaking is obtained under the EAA, standard conditions of approval are also recommended for the implementation of the undertaking. These conditions may include:

• general requirements to comply with the EA as amended and any commitments provided
• a continuation of the Community Liaison Committee, including an additional requirement to invite both Hamilton school boards to be a part of the committee
• an expiration date on the EA approval (if no construction has commenced)
• documentation requirements for the public record
• compliance monitoring provisions for the proponent to conduct and report on compliance
• the preparation of a complaints protocol to respond to all complaints received during construction
• a requirement for an Indigenous consultation plan to be prepared in consultation with Indigenous communities that outlines how the proponent will consult with Indigenous communities throughout the life of the landfill
• further consultation with the City of Hamilton and members of the public during detailed design, construction and operation

In addition, during the five-week review comment period and prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Minister about this EA, conditions of approval specific to the landfill expansion may be proposed to ensure that the environment remains protected. Below is a preliminary list of potential conditions of approval that may be recommended to the Minister for consideration to further support the commitments made in the amended EA:

• preparation of odour and dust management plans to be submitted with the ECA application to ensure ongoing odour and dust best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed, including requirements for the proponent to consult with the CLC, City of Hamilton and the Hamilton School boards in the development of the dust and odour management and mitigation plans
• a requirement for the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization, as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized

This list is not exhaustive and additional conditions may be proposed subject to further review and consultation.

5. 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 Indigenous communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the amended EA and/or the ministry review. At this time, anyone can make a written request that the Minister refer either all or part of the amended EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if there are outstanding environmental concerns have not already been considered.

At the end of the review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the amended EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA, and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, the amended EA, the review, the comments submitted during the EA and the review comment periods, as well as 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 amended EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire amended 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 proponent will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 9 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

• The City of Hamilton will require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the site.
• A portion of the northeast corner of the SCRF is located in the Hamilton Conservation Authority Regulated Area. As a result, alterations to the drainage within the regulated area related to the stormwater management ponds may require approvals from the Hamilton Conservation Authority.
• An application to amend the existing Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) A181008 for the Site will need to be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) for approval.
• The collection and monitoring of groundwater in the vicinity of the SCRF is governed by Permit To Take Water (PTTW) Number 6543-9ZGNU5 issued by the MECP. No changes are anticipated to the existing PTTW because of the proposed undertaking, which will be up for renewal in 2025.

These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

Any changes outside the scope of this EA may be considered a new undertaking under section 12 of the EAA and may require a new individual EA or potentially could proceed through O. Reg. 232/98 as may be applicable.

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, Conservation and Parks
Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario

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

The review and notice of completion are also available at the following locations:

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Hamilton District Office
Ellen Fairclough Building, 9^th Floor
119 King Street West
Hamilton, Ontario
L8P 4Y7
Tel: 905-573-3141

City of Hamilton Clerk’s Office
71 Main Street West, 1^st Floor
Hamilton, Ontario
L8P 4Y5
Tel: 905-546-2489

Hamilton Public Library
Valley Park Branch
970 Paramount Drive
Stoney Creek, Ontario
L8J 1Y2
Tel: 905-521-7650

Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility
65 Green Mountain Road West
Stoney Creek, Ontario
L8J 1X5
Toll-free: 1-844-898-2380

Making a submission

A five-week public review period 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:

Director
Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5

Re: Stoney Creek Regional Facility expansion environmental assessment
Attention: Jennie Weller, Project Officer

All personal information included in a submission—such as name, address, telephone number and property location of requester—is collected, maintained and disclosed by the ministry for the purpose of transparency and consultation. The information is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act or is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in section 37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Personal information that is submitted will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless a request is made that personal information remain confidential. For more information, the ministry’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator can be contacted at 416-327-1434.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference requirements

Summary of the EA

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

Executive summary is included. Section 2.2 “Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Process” details how the EA was completed as per the requirements of the EAA. Appendix C outlines where the requirements of the amended ToR and EAA are specifically addressed.

List of proponent-led studies

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

Appendix D of the EA is a list of references and works cited for the EA, both in control of the proponent and not under the control of the proponent.

List of additional studies

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

Appendix D of the EA is a list of references and works cited for the EA, both in control of the proponent and not under the control of the proponent.

Maps

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

In the Executive Summary of the EA Figure E. 1 shows the location of the preferred undertaking. Figure 4.1 in Section 4 shows the local study area along with the site study area, used for more focused descriptions of the environment associated with the undertaking.

Identify an existing problem or opportunity

Purpose of and rationale for the undertaking: ToR s. 3.1, EA s. 1, s. 3, s. 5 (4)(1), and s. 5 (6)

The ToR indicated that the EA would be completed under the “focussing” provisions of the EAA, sections 6(2) (c) and 6.1(3). As such no alternatives to were considered in the EA.

Section 3.1 of the EA provides the purpose of the project. This section also outlines the Business Case Analysis, which identifies an economic opportunity for Terrapure to continue receiving waste at its existing facility.

The purpose of the undertaking is to: Increase the approved capacity of the undertaking by 3,680,000 cubic metres of post-diversion, solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.

Description and statement of the rationale for the alternative methods

Alternative methods: s. 6(2)(c), s. 6.1(3) and s. 6.1(2)(b)(ii)

Section 5 of the EA outlines the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking.

A “Do-Nothing” alternative was included as a baseline. The proponent identified that the Do-Nothing does not fulfill the purpose of the undertaking and was instead considered as a benchmark to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative methods.

Six alternative methods were considered for the landfill footprint:

• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 1: Reconfiguration of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility
• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 2: Horizontal expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility
• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 3: Vertical expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility
• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 4: Reconfiguration and horizontal expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility
• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 5: Reconfiguration and vertical expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility
• Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 6: Horizontal and vertical expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility

Each alternative was assessed against the baseline (Do-Nothing) and Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 5: Reconfiguration and vertical expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility was identified as the preferred alternative.

Description of the environment

S. 6(2)(c) and s. 6.1(3)

A preliminary description of the existing environmental conditions was provided in the approved amended ToR. The ToR contained the commitment that the existing environment will be further characterized in the EA.

Existing environment

The existing environment is described in Section 4 of the EA. The purpose of describing the existing environment is to establish baseline conditions and identify the potentially affected environment.

The existing environment covers the following environmental criteria, which addresses the broad definition of the environment:

• natural environment (geology and hydrogeology, surface water, terrestrial and aquatic (including species at risk) and other wildlife, atmospheric (including air, odour and noise)
• the built environment (land use)
• cultural environment (archaeological and cultural heritage)
• economic environment (local employment, labour supply and economic base)
• social environment (traffic, neighbourhood and community character, human health)

Study area

A local study area was defined as extending 1.5 kilometres from the four roads that boarder the existing landfill (Upper Centennial Parkway, Mud Street West, First Road West, and Green Mountain Road.

The existing landfill is a 185.5-acre parcel of land at the Northwest Corner of Mud Street and Upper Centennial Parkway (Highway 20) in the community of upper Stoney Creek.

The nearest residential dwelling (under construction) is approximately 35 metres north of the existing landfill boundary.

There are approximately 5,800 residential dwellings (built, under construction or approved) within the local study area.

Other notable features in the local study area include:

• the Stoney/Battlefield Creek watershed
• a naturally significant forested area
• golf and recreational areas (including parks and dog parks)
• commercial properties
• churches
• nursing home
• schools (including one school within 500 metres of the site and an additional planned school within that boundary)

The ministry is satisfied that a broad definition of the environment was considered and descriptions of existing environmental conditions in the study area are provided.

Description of potential environmental effects

S. 6(2)(c), s. 6.1(3) and s. 6.1(2)(c)(ii)

Potential environmental effects are evaluated throughout the EA for the alternatives and the preferred alternative.

Predicted environmental effects were identified in Section 5 of the EA as part of the effects assessment for evaluating the alternatives and Section 6 for a detailed effects assessment of the preferred alternative. Both positive and negative effects of the alternatives are discussed in Section 5.

Potential negative environmental effects were predominately related to the terrestrial and aquatic environment, the atmospheric and the built (visual) environment. Potential benefits were predominately related to the economic benefits to the community.

As per the ToR and the MECP Guide to Climate Change in EA, a detailed assessment was undertaken in Sections 5 and 6 that evaluated how each alterative would adapt to a changing climate. All alternatives were expected to have low sensitivity to the climate parameters studied.

The methodology for assessing effects is provided in Section 5 of the EA. To assess effects, a logical and easy to follow comparative evaluation was completed through a comprehensive process for which all objectives, criteria and indicators were used evenly to assess project-environment interactions, effects prior to mitigation, and net effects after mitigation is applied.

A peer review was completed to confirm the analysis on the groundwater and surface water impacts of the preferred alternative and this analysis can be found in Section 6.

Various studies help to define the potential effects to the environment including various baseline studies, modelling technologies, GIS and photographic renderings, historic and secondary research, and consultation with members of the public, local organizations, indigenous communities, and government agencies.

The ministry’s technical reviewers are satisfied with the EA. The ministry is satisfied that the evaluation method in the EA was clear, traceable and replicable. The proponent used the comparative evaluation methodology to assess the alternatives in a qualitative manner.

Description of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the environmental effects

S. 6(2)(c), s. 6.1(3) and s. 6.1(2)(c)(iii)

Mitigation measures and net effects for the alternatives and the preferred undertaking have been considered in Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the EA.

Predicted environmental effects, proposed mitigation and net effects are described in Section 6 and Table 6.37.

In Section 6 of the EA, net effects (effects remaining after mitigation is applied) for the preferred alternative were determined to be negligible or no effect. Minimal increases in dust and noise may impact atmospheric environment as well as temporary disruption during construction to terrestrial and aquatic environments. Potential net effects to visual (land use) aesthetics due to a height increase were identified. Proposed visual buffers and vegetation planting is to be used to addressed potential net effects.

On-going monitoring is proposed in Section 8 of the EA to ensure predicted net effects are not exceeded, unexpected negative effects are addressed and predicted impact measurements are realized, EA compliance monitoring and environmental performance monitoring.

The EA describes the potential impact on and from climate change in Sections 5 and 6. Section 6 identifies potential mitigation measures to reduce its impact on GHG emissions and other contributions to climate change. The EA also identifies mitigation measures (mostly through monitoring) that it will apply to climate change adaptation.

The EA describes the potential cumulative effects from the project in combination with identified projects in the local study area. Cumulative effects were identified as only having minor or moderate net effects, which are considered not significant, on two components: landscape composition and use and enjoyment of private property. Mitigation measures are proposed to address these potential cumulative effects.

Terrapure has revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring.

Evaluation of advantages and disadvantages to the environment

S. 6(2)(c), s. 6.1(3) and s. 6.1(2)(d)

Advantages and disadvantages to the environment are understood through a review of the comparative evaluation of alternatives provided in Section 5 of the EA.

The advantages and disadvantages of the preferred alternative are identified in Section 6 of the EA, in Table 6.38.

In general, the proponent’s assessment is clear and traceable with respect to the evaluation and selection of alternatives.

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

Description of consultation with interested stakeholders

S. 6(2)(c), s. 6.1(3) and s. 6.1(2)(e)

Section 7 of the EA provides a consultation program overview; documenting key consultation activities and summarizing major consultation events. The detailed record of consultation can be found in Volume 3 of the EA.

Key consultation methods include notifications, letters, phone calls, emails, social media, meetings and information sessions.

Consultation with the public, agencies and Indigenous communities was considered by the proponent and resulted in changes to the EA as identified in the “What Has Changed” document submitted with the EA.

The ministry is satisfied that the consultation undertaken is consistent with the Code of Practice for Consultation in Ontario’s EA Process, meets the requirements of the EAA and is consistent with the approved amended ToR.

Commitments for further consultation are stated in the final EA, Section 8.3, and Table 8.2.

The ministry is satisfied that the public, agencies and Indigenous communities had opportunities to comment and provide input on the EA throughout the process. The ministry is satisfied with the consultation undertaken during the development of the EA and the commitments made by Terrapure for further consultation during the construction and operations phases.

The ministry is considering recommending conditions of approval including further consultation requirements for dust management planning, odor management and truck operations.

Proposed undertaking

Description and statement of the rationale for the undertaking, s. 3, s. 5, s. 6(2)(c) and s. 6.1(3)

Section 3 of the EA explains rationale for a predetermined alternative to the undertaking, and provides rationale for evaluating alternative methods, as opposed to alternatives to the project.

Appendix E of the EA contains the Business Case Analysis, which supports the proponent’s predetermined “Alternative To”.

The evaluation process in Section 5 of the final EA explains why alternatives were chosen and why the preferred undertaking (Alternative 5) was selected.

Section 6 of the EA provides a description and rationale for the preferred undertaking in the form of a Detailed Impact Assessment.

The preferred alternative was chosen, and subsequently refined through further public, agency and other stakeholder consultation, as it best met the purpose of the undertaking, which is indicated in Section 3 of the EA.

The preferred undertaking provides a clear description of all components of the undertaking during the construction, operation, and closure/post-closure phases including projected height and footprint increase, constructed infrastructure and buffer, leachate collection system, truck traffic, base liners, and new waste disposed of at the site.

The description of the proposed undertaking mirrors the evaluation of all other alternative methods, using the same criteria, which include the following effects:

• groundwater quality & quantity
• surface water quality & quantity
• terrestrial & aquatic ecosystems
• air quality, noise, and odours on off-site receptors
• existing land uses
• view of the facility
• human health, focusing on air, ground and surface water, and soil quality
• human health stemming from leachate quantity
• traffic
• approved or planned land uses
• economic benefit to the City of Hamilton and immediate community
• known or potential heritage, both built and landscape
• potential or known archeological resources
• management in leachate and stormwater
• ability to provide service for disposal
• construction, operation, closure and post-closure stages
• cost of facility and expansion

The ministry is satisfied that the preferred alternative meets the project objectives as per the approved amended ToR.

Additional ToR commitments

Appendix C of the EA details commitments made in the amended ToR, and where it is addressed in the EA.

Table 8.3 contains a list of commitments made in the final EA. The table was amended to address commitments made I response to comments on the EA. The amended EA is available on the proponent’s website.

Additional approvals

Section 9 of the EA contains a comprehensive list of potential provincial, federal and other agency permits and approvals expected to be required.

These approvals may include:

• zoning by-law no. 3692-92 amendment from the City of Hamilton
• drainage into stormwater ponds approval from Hamilton Conservation Authority
• amendment to the existing Environmental Compliance agreement A181008 with the MECP
• stormwater approvals under ECA 5400-7DSSHU Industrial Sewage Works, and Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, March 2003 from MECP
• revised Permit To Take Water number 6543-9ZGNU5 under MECP
• Endangered Species Act for protection of eastern meadowlark habitat through MNRF

Appendix B: Submissions received during the initial comment period

You can review the submissions in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

Table 1: Government Review Team comment summary table

Ontario Provincial Police

We are satisfied with the EA and have no comments.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board

Air Quality

Given that the facility does not and will not receive putrescible materials, we expect many typical nuisances associated with landfill sites will be better mitigated. The wind flows may cause issues for dust particulate from both the site and the vehicular traffic entering/exiting the site, and these will need to be continuously monitored and addressed, perhaps with vegetation along borders to capture some of the dust.

Class time, schedules and location of play fields will need to be coordinated to ensure that air quality and dust do not negatively impact students who will be outside at various times throughout the day.

Proponent’s response

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on air quality was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the SCRF can meet provincial and federal air quality guidelines, with the implementation of appropriate impact management measures and with some added mitigation or slightly reduced operations during periods when operations are occurring near the SCRF fence line, particularly in Phase 3 when operations may be occurring near the north side of the property (Section 6.2.1.4 of the SCRF EA Report). As a result, it is anticipated that there will be no net effect on air quality at off-site receptors, including the proposed school property.

The SCRF currently has a dust mitigation plan and best practices related to dust mitigation will continue to be implemented at the Site for all phases of the work, including:

• paving Site access roads (entry and exit) within the buffer area;
• use of road watering on paved and unpaved roads, to minimize dust generation on-Site;
• minimizing the level of daily activity, or increasing dust mitigation activities, when operations are near the fence line; and
• continued use of the wheel-washing station near the Site exit, to reduce track-out of material from the Site onto First Road West.

In addition, air quality will continue to be monitored through an on-site air quality monitoring station which is documented as part of the annual monitoring process; and Terrapure will continue to document air quality complaints related to dust or odour and investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to SCRF operations (Sections 6.2.1.4 and 8.1.4 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the commitments to air monitoring made by Terrapure will address the concerns by the school board.

The ministry is considering a condition to require the preparation of odour and dust management plans to be submitted with the ECA to ensure ongoing odour and dust best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed, including requirements for the proponent to consult with the CLC, City of Hamilton and the Hamilton School boards in the development of the dust and odour management and mitigation plans.

Noise

The facility is expected to be operational from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with rather steady traffic and operational noise. Ongoing monitoring is required to ensure that these operational uses do not materially interfere with the proposed school. Terrapure will need to render analysis that demonstrate its noise levels surrounding the entire site are within the Ministry of the Environment standards for residential development, so that proper mitigation measures can be discusses, and implemented rather than placing all such measures onto design requirements for residential, commercial or institutional buildings.

Proponent’s response

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on noise was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that noise impacts of the all phases of the project will remain below site specific noise limits (Section 6.2.1.5 of the SCRF EA Report).

As per the existing Environmental Compliance Approval, semi-annual noise monitoring will continue and be documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report (Section 8.1.5 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Odour

While HWDSB takes comfort from the excerpts of the reports within the terms of reference materials that demonstrate few complaints relating to odour, it remains a concern that the location of the School Site is proximate to the ponds and facilities will have the greatest potential for negative environmental effects, including leaching and odour. HWDSB will require ongoing monitoring and evidence of mitigation measures to address the nature and frequency of odour complaints.

While it appears that given the nature of the waste at the facility, there is a reduced likelihood of gas as both a threat of combustion risk and odour, HWDSB believes that additional testing may be required to confirm this, given the proximity of the various pond facilities in the northerly and westerly locations of the site.

Proponent’s response

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on odour was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the SCRF is unlikely to contribute to significant odour issues in the area based on limited odour generating materials at the SCRF and through the continuation of best management practices. (Table 6.37 of the SCRF EA Report).

As well, as noted above, Terrapure will continue to document air quality complaints related to dust or odour and investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to SCRF operations (Sections 6.2.1.4 and 8.1.4 of the SCRF EA Report).

Regarding potential leaching, the design of the existing base liner system, used to contain leachate, will remain unchanged as a result of the implementation of the Preferred Landfill Footprint (Section 6.2.6).

Regarding the likelihood of landfill gas, since the SCRF does not accept materials that are capable of decomposing and generating gases, a landfill gas emission study was prepared in 2011 demonstrating that very little gas is generated at the SCRF, and the Site was granted an exemption from the MECP from the requirement to have a landfill gas collection system (see Section 6.2.6). As part of this EA, Terrapure completed an update to the 2011 study mentioned above and the site continues to produce very little gas due to the types of materials accepted at the SCRF.

Regular monitoring for air quality, odour, noise, gas, etc., occurs at the SCRF. In addition, monitoring occurs at SCRF ancillary facilities, such as the leachate pond. All monitoring is documented and submitted to the MECP in an Annual Monitoring Report. Copies are available for public review and also sent to the City of Hamilton.

MECP status

The ministry is considering a condition to require the preparation of odour and dust management plans to be submitted with the ECA to ensure ongoing odour and dust best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed, including requirements for the proponent to consult with the CLC, City of Hamilton and the Hamilton School boards in the development of the dust and odour management and mitigation plans.

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Groundwater Quality/Flow

It would assist to have a comprehensive table that demonstrates the location and reporting analysis of each of the monitoring facilities, particularly along the northerly and westerly borders of the Terrapure facility. Updated tests will be required to confirm the state of repair of the liner of the leachate collection pond, storm water management pond and related infrastructure. Impacts to potable water must be better understood, together with an analysis that will ascertain impacts from operations rather than natural subsurface rock features.

There also appears to be uncertainty about the future location of these ponds and HWDSB would like to discuss options to reconfigure the Terrapure site so that these ponds are not proximate to any buffer, set back or lot line that faces any residential or institutional use.

Proponent’s response

The location of groundwater monitors are included in Figure 4.2 of the Geology and Hydrogeology Impact Assessment Report (Appendix J1 of the SCRF EA Report).

Terrapure currently monitors and will continue to implement a monitoring program which includes a collection of static water levels and groundwater quality samples four times per year at an extensive network of monitoring wells screened within the various flow zones on-Site and in the Site Study Area. The monitoring well network has evolved through the many years of Site monitoring to provide a very detailed account of the distribution of hydraulic head (static groundwater conditions) and groundwater quality within the various flow zones (Section 8.1.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

The performance of environmental control systems, including the liner and leachate collection system is also reviewed and discussed in the annual monitoring report.

The potential effect of the proposed Undertaking on potable groundwater was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that no off-site groundwater receptors will be affected during construction, operation or closure/post-closure, with the implementation of appropriate environmental controls (Section 6.2.1.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

Existing environmental controls incorporated in the landfill design will be maintained and expanded including:

• extend existing 3 m thick double liner system
• extraction well M4 will be maintained and operated for the purpose of collecting potentially impacted groundwater from closed west landfill and maintain inward gradients for the Preferred Landfill Footprint
• construction of the network of groundwater collection trenches is completed beneath the liner system as landfill cells are constructed (as per the existing design Maintain an inward gradient across the liner system through flooding the Hydraulic Control Layer

The draft Geology and Hydrogeology Impact Assessment Report was peer reviewed by Dr. Kerry Rowe, whose comments were reflected in the final Geology and Hydrogeology Impact Assessment Report. Dr. Rowe concluded that …if properly implemented and operated the expansion will have negligible impact on off-site ground and surface water quality (see Section 6.9.4 of the SCRF EA Report).

With respect to the location of the existing leachate and stormwater management ponds, the locations for these facilities will not change, although upgrades to the stormwater management pond are proposed.

MECP status

Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Traffic

Traffic will become a growing concern as general development increases but particular attention must be made to maintain traffic safety. With the advent of a school and surrounding residential construction, heavy industrial traffic will need to be calmed and assessed frequently.

Terrapure is licensed to accommodate up to 250 vehicles each day (between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.) but only currently realizes about 70–80. As it is uncertain how the facility will accommodate regional (and, in some cases, Provincial) industrial materials/fill and maintain these traffic numbers. As such, we suggest that the terms of reference consider traffic mitigation measures as if the facility had traffic closer to the licensed amount of 250 vehicles.

Proponent’s response

The potential effect of the proposed Undertaking on traffic was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the proposed capacity increase is not anticipated to result in additional daily SCRF truck traffic to the current volumes and therefore there are no net effects resulting from traffic (Section 6.2.3.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

A conservative approach based on the 250 daily maximum vehicles permitted, spread over the 10 operating hours of the SCRF was used for the analysis of traffic (Section 6.3 of Appendix J—7—Traffic Detailed Impact Assessment).

Furthermore, as per the results of the 2023 future conditions intersection analysis, assuming daily SCRF truck traffic was to increase to the maximum allowable 250 vehicles per day, the operational impact is expected to be negligible.

MECP status

Terrapure has amended the EA to include a commitment to prepare a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework describing proposed driver training and awareness strategies, in consultation with the City of Hamilton; and to maintain the Framework during construction and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to require the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization; as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized.

Visual Impacts

Ongoing assessment and reassessment of visual impacts should be made frequently to avoid any nuisance. The proposed elementary school may not exceed three stories, but in any event, visual impacts as viewed from the School Site, should be addressed in the EA. Increased fill along borders may assist but other measures should be considered if the effect would be to increase the risk of dust or poor air quality. Terrapure should be considering the feasibility of landscaping or partial enclosures (fencing) to promote safety and visual impacts.

Proponent’s response

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls (Section 6.2.2.1 of the SCRF EA Report). A commitment was made by Terrapure in the EA Report to finalize and implement screening measures following EA Approval (Section 8, Table 8.3).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response, and the commitment made by Terrapure to try and mitigate visual impacts.

Site Design

The EA should appropriately address the reconfiguration of the site to best address the environmental impacts noted in the terms of reference and the ensuing consultation process. While municipal site plan approvals will be necessary in any event, the community gains when site design elements for such an enterprise are discussed in consultation with appropriate stakeholders.

It is important, therefore, that Terrapure provide rationalizations for its various site design options for reconfiguration. HWDSB would be pleased to further discuss opportunities to relocate geohydrological infrastructure such as various ponds, and certain industrial activities (such as the location of the vehicle wash stations in a more appropriate area to reduce the chance for contamination).

Proponent’s response

A number of parameters and assumptions were established to guide the development of the Alternative Landfill Footprints that were considered as part of the EA process, including buffer areas, setback to surrounding developments, and infrastructure requirements (see Section 5.1.1. of the SCRF EA Report). After developing conceptual designs for the six Alternative Landfill Footprints, they were assessed against a set of criteria that represents the broad definition of the environment under the Environmental Assessment Act (i.e. natural, built, social, economic, cultural, and technical) (see Section 5.3 of the SCRF EA Report).

The six proposed Alternative Landfill Footprints, proposed evaluation criteria, and results of the assessment and comparative evaluation of the Alternative Landfill Footprints was presented to review agencies, including the HWDSB, for review and comment (Sections 7.2 of the SCRF EA Report). This included presentation of the proposed Alternative Landfill Footprints and evaluation criteria at GRT Webinar #1, presentation of results of the assessment and comparative evaluation of the Alternative Landfill Footprints at GRT Webinar #2 and circulation of the draft Alternative Methods Report (Sections 7.4.3 and 7.4.5 of the SCRF EA Report). The HWDSB indicated that they had no comments on the Alternative Methods Report (Table 7.3 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Testing, Monitoring and Due Diligence

The comprehensive testing Terrapure has compiled to date is helpful; however, many of the reports are from around 2010-2012 and relate to the approved subdivisions to the northeast. These reports may not reference environmental standards that are in place at present or may have been under former MOECC guidelines. Furthermore, these reports are appropriate and were generated to the residential development to the north, which will have its own set of geological, fluvial geological, land use and other environmental impacts that may not be appropriate for development on the westerly portion of the facility. Additional consultation and reporting is likely and HWDSB would appreciate receiving copies of those reports during the EA process and beyond, especially where monitoring is required.

Proponent’s response

As part of the SCRF EA, relevant and up-to-date supporting information, such as studies, models or reports, were used to characterize the existing environment and assess the potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking. Terrapure proactively circulated draft reports to agencies, including HWDSB, for their review and comment throughout the SCRF EA.

As per the existing Environmental Compliance Approval, Terrapure prepares and will continue to prepare an Annual Monitoring Report, which provides locations and reporting on all the monitoring infrastructure and facilities. These reports are submitted to the MECP and City of Hamilton in June of every year, providing the monitoring results for the previous calendar year. For example, in June 2018, the 2017 Annual Monitoring Report was sent to the MECP, City of Hamilton and posted on Terrapure’s CLC website (Section 8.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Hamilton Conservation Authority

Please be advised that staff of the Hamilton Conservation Authority have reviewed the above noted Environmental Assessment. We are satisfied with the EA and have no objections to its approval.

Please note that we have provided comments through the EA review process regarding storm water management. We received satisfactory clarification regarding these comments on August 17, 2018 and note that the issues we have raised will be dealt with through the storm water detailed design stage.

We thank you for the opportunity to review this EA. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 905-525-2181 ext. 130.

Proponent’s response

Thank you for your review and comment.

MECP status

Noted.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

We have not identified any changes since our last review, so we do not have any comments to add.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

City of Hamilton

General

Please note, that at the February 19, 2019 Planning Committee, recommendation c) of Report PED16184(c) was not supported by the Committee and subsequently the formal position of Council remains opposed to the expansion and reconfiguration of the Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility. Additionally, an amending motion went forward at the February 27, 2019 Council meeting to change Corporate Services comment, which are reflected in the attached letter.

Proponent’s response

Notwithstanding the position of council, we note that City of Hamilton staff recommended that Council no longer oppose the expansion and reconfiguration of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility. We also note the following position of staff as stated in staff report PED16184(c):

Given the revisions that have occurred through the Preliminary Draft EA and Draft EA, the remaining staff comments remain technical in nature and should not prohibit Council from supporting the application for the expansion and reconfiguration of the landfill.

MECP status

Noted.

Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division

With regards to the Noise Detailed Impact Assessment Report, prepared by GHD, dated January 2019, the following comments and questions should be addressed:

• Based on the findings of the noise study, noise levels resulting from the revised landfill footprint will not exceed noise limits at any sensitive receptors during any phases of the landfill operation, based on the phasing plan outlined in the report.
• Note that the phasing plan identifies Phase 3 of the landfill operations commencing in 2023. Should this phasing plan change, additional noise impact review would be required.

Proponent’s response

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on noise was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that noise impacts of the all phases of the project will remain below site specific noise limits (Section 6.2.1.5 of the SCRF EA Report).

Updates on the landfill operation phasing will be included in the Annual Monitoring Report, which is submitted to the City of Hamilton on an annual basis for their review. Terrapure will continue to undertake semi-annual noise monitoring for the lifetime of the Facility, which will be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed phasing plan of the SCRF. The monitoring strategy for noise has been developed to ensure that the predicted effects in the EA Report are not exceeded, unexpected negative effects are addressed and predicted impact management measure effects are realized.

MECP status

Ministry is satisfied with this response.

Public Works Departments, Source Water Protection

The following comments are provided regarding the Geology and Hydrogeology Impact Assessment Report and the Design & Operations Detailed Impact Assessment, both prepared by GHD, dated January 2019:

• GHD should provide a discussion of the corrections applied to the field permeameter testing pertaining to clay liner compatibility analysis.
• The effective consolidation pressure used for the lab permeameter analyses was 18 to 25 kPa, the author should discuss the relevance of the effective consolidation pressure applied during testing to the anticipated consolidation pressures of the liner once the landfill is at capacity.
• There was no leachate interaction/compatibility discussion or mineralogical assessment of the clay to identify its swelling potential, where smectite or illite clay minerals are predominant, additional conductivity analyses may be warranted using synthetic leachate. The author should discuss the clay compatibility with respect to the anticipated leachate water quality.
• Due to the potential for groundwater impacts off-site, Hamilton Water recommends that a cursory review of any available domestic water quality from the proximal private wells be completed. An attempt should be made to re-establish a relationship with those residents who have historically refused to participate in the monitoring program. An attempt should also be made to locate and include Private Well 1 into the monitoring program (if this well has not yet been decommissioned).
• GHD should provide greater discussion on the likelihood of onsite operations affecting downgradient groundwater quality onto neighbouring private property. Monitoring and mitigation of potential impacts should be incorporated into this discussion. Future development on downgradient property (and the subsequent need for potential dewatering for land development) increases groundwater quality risks to these downgradient properties.

Proponent’s response

• Field permeameter testing of the CCL is carried out using Stage 1 of the Two-Stage Borehole Test (Boutwell and Tsai, 1992). The test methodology uses a control (i.e., a sealed permeameter) to monitor the expansion/contraction of the water due to changes in temperature and to determine a correction factor that can be applied to the test results to account for these effects.
• The effective consolidation pressure will increase as the load (i.e., depth and density of the overlying materials) increases. Increased consolidation reduces the void ratio of the soil and further decreases the permeability. Given that the expanded landfill could have up to 30 m of waste on top of the CCL at a density of approximately 1.7 tonnes/m³, an effective consolidation pressure of 18 to 25 kPa represents a conservative estimate of the anticipated consolidation pressure of the CCL once the landfill is at capacity
• Testing of the compatibility of the CCL material with landfill leachate was carried out in accordance with ASTM Standard STP886. Testing was carried out using actual samples of the clay and leachate collected from the site. The Standard notes that before permeability tests are performed, the index properties of the soil should be determined by mixing the soil with water and by mixing the soil with the leachate. If the leachate does not affect the index properties of the soil, it is not likely to affect the permeability. The solubility of the soil in the leachate should also be checked if the soil is acidic or basic. Test results confirmed that the index properties of the soil were not affected by the landfill leachate, and that the leachate has a relatively neutral pH of approximately 7.5. As such, the permeability of the CCL is not expected to be affected by the landfill leachate
• As part of the ongoing groundwater monitoring program, a survey of surrounding properties downgradient of the SCRF will also be undertaken in order to identify private wells providing drinking water, and these wells will be included in the groundwater monitoring program, as applicable (Section 8.1.1). Furthermore, Terrapure will continue to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring.
• The assessment undertaken as part of the SCRF EA to characterize the existing groundwater environment and assess potential effects on downgradient groundwater quality was based on information from existing monitoring wells and predictive modelling. This information was sufficient and appropriate to characterize the existing environment and assess potential effects (Sections 4.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.1). Additional information requested by the City of Hamilton on the existing groundwater monitoring network is included in the attached memorandum.

MECP status

Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Public Works Department, Infrastructure Planning & System Design

The following comment is provided regarding both the Geology and Hydrogeology Detailed Impact Assessment Report and Surface Water Detailed Impact Assessment Report, completed by GHD, dated January 2019:

• Staff have stated that the limited capacity of the downstream sanitary sewer will dictate the release rate of any flows from the property.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Planning and Economic Development Department, Transportation Planning Division

The following comments are provided regarding the Traffic Detailed Impact Assessment Report, prepared by GHD, dated January 2019:

• The Transportation Planning Section reiterates that SCRF vehicles will not be authorized to use Green Mountain Road as it is not the most direct delivery route and not identified on the truck route map and is therefore subject to enforcement.
• In addition, a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework should be created and maintained. The framework should include driver training and awareness strategies as well as monitoring and evaluation strategies on an annual and/or semi-annual basis.
• Driver training and awareness strategies to improve driver sense of responsibility may include:
  • reporting of vehicle safety and driver training certificates
  • to adhere to safety requirements when operating heavy vehicles, keep the truck under positive control at all times, and observe all established traffic regulations (may include vehicle performance reviews);
  • to be courteous to others—abide by the rules of the road, do not exceed the maximum posted or safe operating speed, and share the road with all road users (may include driver performance reviews);
  • to drive defensively—monitor actions of other road users, changing the weather and road conditions, and maintain appropriate following distance in all driving conditions; and
  • to be a good neighbour—adopt a designated truck route, avoid intrusion to the residential neighbourhoods, and unnecessary use of engine brakes near residential land-uses.
• Monitoring and evaluation strategies may include:
  • Community complaint logs;
  • Monitor and evaluate driver operational performance in alignment with MTO’s safety guidelines for Commercial Vehicles Operators Registration (CVOR);
  • Introduce technological measures to monitor the driving behaviour of the truck operators concerning their interaction with other road users and in accordance to road and weather condition;
  • Create a frequent screening policy concerning vehicles exhaust system to alleviate the noise pollution and detect illegally modified mufflers; and,
  • Incorporate GPS tracking technologies to:
    • trace and embrace efficient routing;
    • monitor truck route compliance;
    • reduce transportation costs;
    • improve operational service levels;
    • identify deficiencies and act responsibly; and
    • collect data to support and simplify business improvement and decision-making processes.

Proponent’s response

To confirm, vehicles are not currently permitted to use Green Mountain Road and will not be permitted to in the future (Section 6.1.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

As noted by the City, the request for the proposed Truck Operations Monitoring Framework and driver training and awareness strategies are outside of the scope of the SCRF EA.

Notwithstanding, Terrapure has Health and Safety policies for operations at the SCRF including truck operations and driving. It should be noted that not all of the vehicles that access the site are under the control of Terrapure (i.e. third-party haulers). Terrapure would be willing to discuss the existing Health and Safety policies further with the City.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Terrapure has amended the EA to include a commitment to prepare a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework describing proposed driver training and awareness strategies, in consultation with the City of Hamilton; and to maintain the Framework during construction and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to require the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization; as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized.

Healthy and Safe Communities Department, Public Health Services

At this point Public Health Services staff has no formal detailed comments as it deals with the environmental technical reports. Public Health Services staff do not require a modified Human Health Risk Assessment.

Further, Public Health Services staff requested the inclusion of a Pest Control Plan in the Final Environmental Assessment. A Pest Control Plan was provided at the Draft Environmental Assessment stage and was subsequently approved by staff.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Corporate Services Department, Legal Services

Council of the City of Hamilton authorized staff to discuss revised terms the City of Hamilton 1997 Compensation Agreement with Revolution Landfill LP, operating as Terrapure Environmental. Although a meeting was scheduled between the parties for February 25, 2019, it was re-scheduled by Terrapure. A date in early March of 2019 is now being canvassed.

City of Hamilton requests that should the MECP approve the undertaking proposed in the Environmental Assessment, the Ministry require Terrapure to enter into good faith negotiations and ultimately, a subsequent agreement with the City of Hamilton, with the view of updating and improving the host community compensation terms currently contained in the City of Hamilton Compensation Agreement dated February 1997.

Proponent’s response

The existing compensation agreement between Terrapure and the City of Hamilton will continue so long as residual solid non-hazardous material are accepted at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF).

Terrapure maintain their position from August 2018 when the compensation agreement was initially brought-up by the City of Hamilton. Terrapure are open to discussing the existing compensation agreement with the City, outside of the technical approvals (Environmental Assessment and Environmental Compliance Approvals) process. Terrapure is currently waiting for the City of Hamilton to schedule a meeting to discuss this further.

MECP status

The ministry understands that Terrapure has committed to continuing discussions with the City of Hamilton on the compensation agreement.

Planning and Economic Development Department, Economic Development Division, Real Estate Section

The following comments are provided regarding the Land Use and Economic Detailed Impact Assessment Report, prepared by GHD, dated January 2019:

• Valuation Methodology proposed by RIAS Inc. was approved by the City of Hamilton in November 2018, which included an assessment of transaction prices and/or CVA pre- and post-1996. At this time, this assessment has not been provided.
• Provision of an assessment of transaction prices and/or CVA pre- and post-1996 or an explanation to be provided as to why the pre- and post-1996 analysis was not completed by RIAS Inc.

Proponent’s response

RIAS Inc.’s planned approach to their assessment was subject to availability of price and CVA data. In their subsequent discussions with MPAC, RIAS Inc. discovered that MPAC databases do not have historical data that would allow for an assessment pre- and post-1996, so RIAS focussed their analysis on MPAC data from the past 5 years. This included examining price trends within the local study area and prices and CVAs within the local study area compared to similar properties in surrounding neighborhoods.

MECP status

The ministry and the City of Hamilton are satisfied with this response.

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Environmental Approvals Branch

Response to the Draft EA Comments

The ministry made several comments regarding the need for the proponent to …include all relevant supporting information, such as studies, models or reports, which demonstrates, confirms or validates how the proposed actions or potential actions that may be necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the effects or the potential effects of each of the alternatives will achieve their intended purpose.

The proponent’s response to these comments indicated they would cite relevant information, studies, models, and other associated information. Although such sources were used to back up evaluations of alternatives, citations were only found for a few potential effects, such as surface water and community health effects. The ministry is requesting confirmation whether other sources were used to determine other effects for environmental criteria and indicators.

Aside from this discrepancy, there were no noteworthy issues with the changes made to address the ministry’s comments on the draft EA.

Proponent’s response

To confirm, other sources including studies and models and reports were used to determine other effects for environmental criteria and indicators.

For geology and hydrogeology, the following sources were used:

• Hydrogeologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model
• Rowe, R.K. 2012. Short and long-term leakage through composite liners, The 7^th Arthur Casagrande Lecture, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 49(2): 141-169.
• GHD. Operating Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill, Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A181008, Annual Report 2017. June 30, 2018.
• Jackman Geoscience Inc., Operating Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill, Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A181008, Annual Report 2016. June 30, 2017.

For surface water the following sources were used:

• PCSWMM Version 7.1
• SWMM5 version 5.1.012
• Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Committee, Assessment Report Hamilton Region Source Protection Area Version 2.7, July 25, 2015.
• Jackman Geoscience Inc., Closed Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill, Environmental Compliance Approval No. A130404, Annual Report 2016. June 30, 2017
• Jackman Geoscience Inc., Operating Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill, Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A181008, Annual Report 2016. June 30, 2017.
• Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Amended Environmental Compliance Approval, Number A181008, March 1, 2016 and Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Certificate of Approval—Industrial Sewage Works, Number 5400-7DSSHU, May 1, 2008.

For terrestrial and aquatic environment, the following sources were used:

• GHD, 2017. Draft Surface Water Existing Conditions Report. September 2017, Ref. 11102771 (5)
• Hamilton Conservation Authority, 2014. Natural Areas Inventory Project 3^rd Edition.
• Jackman Geoscience Inc., June 30, 2015. Closed Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill: Environmental Compliance Approval.
• Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017. Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List. (Accessed: September 2017)
• Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017a. Snapping Turtle. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/snapping-turtle (Accessed: September 2017)
• Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017b. Butternut. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/butternut-species-risk (Accessed: September 2017)
• Rodewald, P. (Editor). 2016. The Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/.
• Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

For the atmospheric environment (air and odour) the following sources were used:

• Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2013. Backgrounder: Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards. Accessed 20 September, 2017
• Environment Canada. 2018. Canadian Climate Normals for Hamilton Airport. Accessed 10 May, 2018.
• GHD. 2018. Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment. Draft Air, Odour, and Meteorology Existing Conditions Report. 2 March, 2018.
• Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2013. 2012 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017
• 2013 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017
• Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2015. 2014 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017
• Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2016. 2015 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017
• Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2017. 2016 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017
• MECP. 2016. Air Contaminants Benchmarks (ACB) List: Standards, guidelines, and screening levels for assessing point of impingement concentrations of air contaminants. Version 1—December 13, 2018.
• MECP. 2017. Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario (Guideline A-11), Version 3. PIBs #5165e03. February 2017.
• MECP. 2017. Accessed 14 September, 2017
• MECP. 2018. Air Contaminants Benchmarks (ACB) List: Standards, guidelines, and screening levels for assessing point of impingement concentrations of air contaminants. Version 2—April 2018.
• MECP. 2018. MECP Terrain Data for Air Dispersion Modelling, Accessed May 2018
• Newalta Corporation. 2014. Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A181008 Annual Report 2013. June 27, 2014.
• Newalta Corporation. 2015. Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A181008 Annual Report 2014. June 30, 2015.
• Terrapure Environmental Operating Stoney Creek Regional Facility. 2017. Environmental Compliance Approval No. A181008 Annual Report 2015. June 30, 2016.
• Terrapure Environmental Operating Stoney Creek Regional Facility. 2017. Environmental Compliance Approval No. A181008 Annual Report 2016. June 30, 2017.

For land use and economic the following sources were used:

• Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013);
• City of Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05-200;
• City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92;
• MTE Consulting. February 8, 2010. Red Hill Developments, Empire Communities & 706870 Ontario Limited Nash Neighbourhood—FINAL—Revised Landfill Impact Assessment;
• AMEC. September 20, 2010. Peer Review of the Revised Landfill Impact Assessment dated 14 September 2010 for the Proposed Red Hill Developments, Empire Communities and 706870 Ontario Limited Nash Neighbourhood Hamilton, Ontario. 6;
• UrbanTech West. October 2, 2014. Amendment to the Review Landfill Impact Assessment Report—Redhill Developments, Empire Communities and 706870 Ontario Limited.

For traffic, the following sources were used:

• Synchro Version 9
• 2010-2015 SCRF Truck Count Data
• 1997-2015 SCRF Tonnage Reports
• Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, City of Hamilton, Public Works Department, July 2009
• Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, Transportation Association of Canada, September 1999

For human health the following sources were used:

• ATSDR. 2006. Minimal Risk Levels for Hazardous Substances (MRLs). US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Atlanta, Georgia. December 2006.
• CCME. 2012. Guidance Document on Achievement Determination Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. PN 1332. ISBN-10 1-896997-45-7 PDF.
• GHD. 2018a. Facility Characteristics Report—Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment. DRAFT. Prepared for Terrapure Environmental. GHD. Project 11102771. Report No. 24. May 11, 2018.
• GHD. 2018b. Detailed Impact Assessment: Environmental Assessment for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) Landfill Expansion—Air Quality and Odour. DRAFT. Prepared for Terrapure Environmental. GHD. Project 11102771. June 12, 2018.
• GHD. 2018c. Detailed Impact Assessment: Environmental Assessment for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) Landfill Expansion—Geology and Hydrogeology. DRAFT. Prepared for Terrapure Environmental. GHD. Project 11102771. May, 2018.
• GHD. 2018d. Detailed Impact Assessment: Environmental Assessment for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) Landfill Expansion—Surface Water. DRAFT. Prepared for Terrapure Environmental. GHD. Project 11102771. May, 2018.
• GHD. 2017. Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment: Approved Amended Terms of Reference. Project 11102771. Report No. 16. November 9, 2017.
• WHO. 2005. WHO air quality guidelines global update 2005. Report on a Working Group meeting, Boon, Germany, October 18-20, 2005.

For design and operations, the following sources were used:

• AECOM, Dillon and Consulting Genivar (2010). City of Sault Ste Marie, Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Alternatives to the Undertaking
• Bakis, R., Koyuncu, H., & Demirbas, A. (2006). An investigation of waste foundry sand in asphalt concrete mixtures. Waste Management & Research, 24(3), 269-274.
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2017). Beneficial Uses of Spent Foundry Sands. Retrieved on June 11, 2018, from https://www.epa.gov/smm/beneficial-uses-spent-foundry-sands
• Gedik, A.G., Lav, A.H., & Lav, M.A. (2018). Investigation of Alternative Ways for Recycling Waste Foundry Sand: An Extensive Review to Present Benefits. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, (ja).
• JRC European Commission. (2009). Study on the selection of waste streams for end of waste assessment. Retrieved on June 11, 2018
• Quijorna, N., Coz, A., Andres, A., & Cheeseman, C. (2012). Recycling of Waelz slag and waste foundry sand in red clay bricks. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 65, 1-10.
• Lahl, U. (1992). Recycling of waste foundry sands. Science of the total environment, 114, 185-193.
• Łucarz, M., Dańko, R., Dereń, M., & Skrzyński, M. (2016). Investigation of the results of combined reclamation on the particular stages of grain matrix recovery. Archives of Metallurgy and Materials, 61(4), 2151-2158.
• MNRF. (2009). State of the Aggregate Resource in Ontario Study (SAROS)—Paper 4. Retrieved on June 15, 2018
• MECP. (2010) Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario—Section 3.09—Non-hazardous Waste Disposal and Diversion.
• Morstadt, S., & Striegel, K.H. (2003). Waste Treatment Infrastructure in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. In Waste treatment infrastructure in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.
• Stantec. (2011). A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. Retrieved on June 11, 2018
• Sudbury Star. (2014). Sudbury bees enhancing biodiversity on slag piles Updated Story. Retrieved on June 11, 2018
• WSP. (2013). Waste Technologies: Waste to Energy Facilities. Retrieved on June 11, 2018.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Public Consultation and Commitments

Section 4.3.7 of the Codes of Practice requires the proponent to articulate and summarize the comments and concerns raised during the consultation activities and during the preparation of the EA. The proponent is expected to describe where in the EA these concerns were addressed.

Concerns have been raised about the community benefits that were identified during the 2013 ECA amendment process. A response was provided by Terrapure to these concerns in the EA in Section 7, Table 7.9. The response has not provided any issues resolution to these concerns other than identifying the EA as a new undertaking.

The ministry recommends responding and providing clarity to these concerns specific to the operations and mitigation measures proposed for the undertaking, including commitments made to ongoing issues resolutions with the community.

Proponent’s response

We assume that the Ministry is referring to a comment that refers to the following community benefits identified as advantages associated with the 2013 ECA Amendment:

1. Flexibility of future, after-life use of the site.
2. Set-back from future residential development.
3. Improved integrity of the liner and leachate collection system, as the original design concept required construction over an existing groundwater well, which would have required the liner to be perforated to accommodate the well.
4. Avoid construction of the liner over a deeper area of the former quarry floor that has been backfilled with compacted clay, in which settlement could have occurred in the future.
5. Generate less leachate due to the smaller footprint area and allow more rain water to run off and be captured as stormwater without permeating the ground and requiring management as leachate.
6. Avoid moving the site entrance to Mud Street opposite Penny Lane Estates.

In response to these specific concerns:

1. The flexibility of the future, after-life use of the site is not affected by the proposed Undertaking. As discussed in Section 6.6, the final end use of the Site to be determined during post-closure will reflect the City of Hamilton land use planning controls.
2. As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, minimum 30 m buffers will be maintained. As well, impact management measures will be maintained to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour
3. Construction of the liner and leachate collection system over the existing M4 groundwater well will not negatively impact their integrity. As stated in Sections 3.9 and 3.13 of the Facility Characteristics Report (Appendix K), the design of the base liner system and leachate collection system will remain unchanged from the original landfill design, which accounted for construction of the liner over the M4 groundwater extraction well. As a result, the net effects of the geologic and hydrogeological conditions as stated in Section 6.2.1.1 of the SCRF EA Report in the study area remained unchanged.
4. Construction of the liner over the deeper area of the former quarry floor will not negatively impact the integrity of the liner. Construction over this portion of the quarry floor was included in the original Design and Operations Report and will be reflected in the updated Design and Operations Report, which will be prepared as part of the Environmental Compliance Approval application (see Section 9.3). As a result, the net effects of the geologic and hydrogeological conditions as stated in Section 6.2.1.1 of the SCRF EA Report in the study area remained unchanged.
5. As noted in Section 6.1.2.7, leachate generation rates are expected to be generally consistent with flows predicted during the design of the Site. The potential effect of the Undertaking on groundwater, taking into account predicted leachate generation was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no net environmental effects from the Preferred Landfill Footprint on the geologic or hydrogeologic conditions within the Site Study Area (see Section 6.2.1.1)
6. The proposed site entrance/exit will remain the same with the entrance maintained off of Upper Centennial Parkway and the exit on to First Road West (see Section 6.1.1).

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to meet or mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments. The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Do-Nothing Alternative

Section 4.2.2 of the Codes of Practice identifies that the do-nothing alternative should always be considered. The reason for this it is a benchmark in order to determine the extent to which the other alternatives address the problem or opportunity and can highlight the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with a particular undertaking.

The do-nothing is identified in section 5 of the EA as the baseline. While this is acceptable, the do-nothing alternative should have been more carefully articulated throughout the section as the references to it vary from “baseline” to “current approval” and the term “do-nothing” does not appear again.

Section 5.6 of the EA outlines how the net-effects for each alternative were weighed. It was unclear how the do-nothing was used to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.

The ministry requests clarification as to how the do-nothing was considered in the comparative summary table (Table 5.40).

Proponent’s response

Terrapure qualified in Section 5.1, that the Do Nothing alternative also represents the currently approved footprint, therefore, the terms are used interchangeably. The definition of the Do Nothing alternative was presented as follows:

The “Do Nothing” alternative represents the currently approved footprint and would mean that all existing approvals for the SCRF would be maintained and the current SCRF would no longer have the capacity to accept post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material after the currently approved capacity for waste is exhausted in the coming years, but would still continue to operate by accepting industrial fill.

To be clear, no “weighting” was proposed in the Minister approved Terms of Reference or utilized in the net effects analysis or comparative evaluation during the environmental assessment. Section 5.3 of the EA Report provides the description of the assessment and evaluation methodology with respect to the identification of net effects, the comparative evaluation and identification of advantages/disadvantages for each alternative landfill footprint as well as the selection of the recommended landfill footprint and confirmation of the preferred landfill footprint.

Table 5.40 is a graphic representation of the comparative evaluation results, which are presented in greater detail within Appendix I (Alternative Methods Evaluation Report, see Appendix D to this report for comparative evaluation table) to the EA.

The “Do-Nothing” alternative does not address the Purpose of the Undertaking, and is therefore not a viable option, however, the “Do Nothing” alternative was used as a matter of best practice, in order to establish a “benchmark” when evaluating and assessing the advantages and disadvantages of the 6 alternative landfill footprint options (Alternative Methods) that were considered and evaluated.

With this in mind, the advantages and disadvantages between the alternative methods are based on the net effects, comparative evaluation/ranking and associated rationale, which is summarized in Section 5.6.1 of the EA Report and Appendix I. The net effects analysis included an evaluation of each alternative method relative to the existing approved landfill footprint, or Do Nothing, to serve as the benchmark.

Further, a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the Recommended Alternative relative to the “Do-Nothing” option was summarized within the Alternative Methods Evaluation Report (Appendix I, Section 10) for summary purposes.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, West Central Region

Surface Water

The SCRF operates under Environmental Compliance Approval No. A181008. As well, an industrial Sewage Certificate of Approval No. 5400-7DSSHU pertains to the stormwater management and leachate collection ponds.

Due to trigger exceedences included in the current approval, the existing stormwater management pond has operated with the sluice gate closed thereby preventing any discharge of stormwater into the storm sewer since construction of the pond. Instead, stormwater has been diverted into the leachate collection pond which discharges into the sanitary sewer. A modification of the stormwater management pond is proposed with the same triggers and contingency to discharge into the leachate collection pond.

The report indicates that the current surface water monitoring program will continue in order to determine whether the stormwater management pond provides effective treatment. A similar surface water monitoring program will be implemented for any new stormwater management controls as the site develops to ensure that there are no impacts on surface water.

Given the intent for continued and additional monitoring, and as previous concerns have been addressed, there are no outstanding surface water concerns.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. To clarify upstream stormwater also exceeds the criteria for the stormwater management pond, which results in the stormwater being treated as leachate.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Ground Water

Having reviewed the final document, our groundwater reviewer has advised that all previously identified concerns have been satisfactorily addressed with the exception of Terrapure has not provided a more detailed explanation of the method of construction that is to be used for the proposed expansion and whether that methodology has the potential to cause impact to the groundwater flow regime.

And in response to your request to review the comments that were provided by the City of Hamilton, the groundwater reviewer concurs with the City’s last 2 comments.

Proponent’s response

Please see response to the City of Hamilton regarding groundwater.

MECP status

Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Air Quality

Terrapure has acknowledged and committed to providing additional monitoring if deemed necessary by MECP. Accordingly, there are no outstanding concerns relating to air quality impact assessment and mitigation.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Land Use/Compatibility

In previous comments, the concern was raised as to how well the issue of visual impacts had been described. Comments from residents within the immediate area included concerns as to the magnitude of visual impact that would result. This justifies the recommendation that some visual simulations should be prepared to depict the visual impact of the preferred alternative along with the effectiveness of any proposed mitigation (screening and berms).

While it is true that the land use is not fundamentally changing, Terrapure does not appear to have recognized that residents had an expectation that landfilling was going to end by a certain (range of) date(s), dependent on market demand for disposal capacity. With this expansion, these residents will be subjected to additional years of impact while the landfill is operational and subject to a greater visual impact in perpetuity, of a larger/higher landfill. This gives further support to the need for Terrapure’s commitment to provide reasonable, appropriate and effective mitigation.

Terrapure’s response to this was to provide additional written description within Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.7 and update table 8.3.

I have reviewed these sections and have the following comments:

• Continued use of current mitigation measures and best management practices by the company will minimize the impacts to surrounding uses while landfilling is occurring. Hamilton District Office will continue to ensure compliance with the ECA and through active role on the Community Liaison Committee;
• Appendix B, Volume 2, Appendix J-8 provides photos and renderings from 9 surrounding vantage points showing the current condition, the currently approved “view” and modelled “view” of the preferred alternative. The renderings provide the reader with the ability to “see” how the increase in height will alter vistas from each direction;
• Commitment has been made to consider the viability and effectiveness of a range of mitigation measures as part of the site design; and
• There is a recognition that visual impacts will not be totally mitigated for all vantage points, but impacts should be perceived less negatively as landfilling is completed and final cover and vegetation are in place.

Given the commitment to try and mitigate visual impacts, and in the absence of any standards for, and the subjective nature of visual impact, there are no further requirements.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Senior Review Engineer

As I indicated in my previous comments, the opportunity to review and approve the CLS calculation belongs in the review process for the Environmental Compliance Approval. My only comment at this point on these calculations is that the target concentration for chloride should be the Reasonable Use Compliance concentration (as opposed to the Drinking Water Objective).

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. GHD will review these calculations as part the Environmental Compliance Approval Application process.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response and will continue to work with the proponent through the ECA stage to address the concerns.

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Source Protection Programs Branch

General

The Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility is located in the Hamilton Source Protection Area and is therefore subject to the Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Plan.

Given that the local study area is not located in groundwater protection zones (WHPA A-D) and is not in surface water protection zones (IPZ 1-3 or WHPA-E) the Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility is not a significant drinking water threat. Portions of the site intersect with highly vulnerable aquifers and significant groundwater recharge areas, see Appendix A.

This means threats can be moderate/low and some policies may still apply. In addition, within Highly Vulnerable Aquifers there may be other kinds of drinking water systems present that are not explicitly addressed by the source protection plan and we are pleased to see that the proponent has considered these. EA projects should protect sensitive hydrologic features including current or future sources of drinking water not explicitly addressed in source protection plans, such as private systems—individual or clusters, and designated facilities within the meaning of O. Reg. 170/03 under the Safe Drinking Water Act—i.e., camps, schools, health care facilities, seasonal users, etc.

In the Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility Final EA, the proponent has discussed source water protection thoroughly as part of section 4.2.1.1.

The proponent should consult with the local source protection authority(ies) if they have not already done so.

Proponent’s response

As directed, Terrapure will consult with the local source protection authority as part of the Environmental Compliance Approval application.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response and will continue to work with the proponent through the ECA stage to address the concerns.

Section 1.2

The previous report indicates a maximum fill rate of 8,000 tonnes per day. The new report does not state this as tonnes per day, rather up to 250 trucks per day. What are the implications on the acoustic model? It is noted that the analysis of Section 4.4 assumes up to 25 round trips per hour. It is not possible to fully review the truck impact from the site with the printouts given as the sample calculation. It would be preferred to review the CadnaA model directly.

Proponent’s response

To clarify, the maximum daily tonnage of approved residual material received at the Site for final disposal is proposed to remain at 8,000 tonnes (Section 2.4 of the Facility Characteristics Report). Therefore, no changes to the acoustic model are required and the assumptions regarding the truck trips remain valid.

GHD can provide the CadnaA model to the Ministry’s noise reviewer.

MECP status

Complete. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Section 1.3

This list has been expanded since the last report version. Please confirm there are no significant noise sources associated with any of the activities, other than those already listed in Section 5.2.

Proponent’s response

In Section 1.3 the following items were added to the list of information included in the Facility Characteristics Report:

• Accepted materials, capacity, and fill rate
• Buffer areas and setbacks
• Infrastructure requirements
• Base liners and cover systems
• Traffic management

These revisions were made to better reflect the contents of the Facility Characteristics Report and did not reflect any changes to the proposed Undertaking. There are no significant noise sources associated with any of these activities, other than those already listed in Section 5.2.

MECP status

Complete. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Section 4.3.2

Please justify the increase in both medium and heavy trucks from the current numbers to the anticipated 2023 numbers.

Proponent’s response

As discussed during our November 27, 2018  meeting with the MECP, there is substantial residential development occurring north of the SCRF and the traffic studies did not assess future truck percentages on Green Mountain Road. GHD has estimated an increase in medium and heavy trucks percentages from the current numbers to the anticipated 2023 numbers based on an overall increase in residential and commercial traffic servicing those communities in addition to the truck traffic from existing commercial facilities on Green Mountain Road (excluding the SCRF).

MECP status

The ministry agrees that future residential development was discussed at the noted meeting.

If there will also be future commercial development close enough to increase the truck traffic, this comment is addressed.

Terrapure has amended the EA to include a commitment to prepare a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework describing proposed driver training and awareness strategies, in consultation with the City of Hamilton; and to maintain the Framework during construction and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to require the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization; as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized.

Section 4.4

The text refers to POR-2, POR-3 and POR-5 as the receptors studied in the analysis, but the table refers to POR-2, POR-4 and POR-5.

Proponent’s response

The text should read Thus, POR-2, POR-4 and POR-5 were used as the worst-case PORs to assess ambient sound level increases due to increased future off-Site vehicle traffic.

This does not change the results of the impact assessment.

MECP status

Complete.

Section 5.2.1

It would be beneficial to show the NPC-300 sources on a drawing. Loaders are not specifically called out on the source figures.

Proponent’s response

Attached is the revised drawing showing the location of the NPC-300 sources including the loaders. This does not change the results of the impact assessment.

MECP status

Complete.

Section 6.2

The sound level limits are stated for only 2027-2029 in Table 6.1. The limits should be shown for each phase, based on either the exclusion limit or the calculated ambient sound. This is particularly important for 2023-2025, as the sound levels at POR-1 and POR-7 begin to exceed the exclusion limits at that time.

Proponent’s response

The Performance Limit column in Table 6.1 applies to both Phase 3 (2023–2025) and Phase 4 (2025–2027). (2027–2029) should read (2023–2027).

MECP status

Complete.

Appendices

The included report shows ambient determination for the equivalent of POR-3, POR-4 and POR-5 (NR1, NR3 and NR2, respectively) of the current study, but brief details should be given of any differences between the sets of receptors.

Proponent’s response

The sets of receptors are considered comparable. For the background limits NR1, NR2, and NR3 were assessed as single storey PORs (1.5 m). PORs 3, 4, 5 were conservatively assessed at a height of 4.5 m. The separation distances are comparable.

MECP status

Complete.

However, where is the school that the HWDSB is referring to? It is not specifically indicated in the noise report. Please indicate which receptor in the noise report would best represent the future school.

The ministry is satisfied with the response to the above question from Terrapure:

, the northwest corner of Green Mountain Road West and First Road West is designated institutional for a potential future school. POR-1 would best conservatively represent the potential noise impacts at the future school. As shown on Figure 6.1 of the Noise Impact Assessment Report, this location is on the outside edge of the 50-dBA noise contour.

The ministry is considering a condition that would require the proponent to invite both school boards to be a part of the CLC.

Sample Calculations

The noise study should not consider barrier attenuations between O and 5 db. The sample calculations tables show that this is occurring in the model. The settings in CadnaA should be adjusted. Please ensure that the model option “No negative path difference” (as well as “No subtraction of negative ground attenuation”) is selected.

Proponent’s response

We can confirm that the model options “No negative path difference” and “No subtraction of negative ground attenuation” were selected.

MECP status

Complete.

Other

The exposure of POR-2 to Hwy 20 (south facing windows) is not -90 deg. to 90 deg. And the distance is greater than 15 metres. Also, the predicted level doesn't match that of Table 6.1.

Predictions by adjustment of values outside the limits of stamson should not be used.

Proponent’s response

The inclusion of Pages 89 to 94 and 96 was an error. These calculations were not used in the assessment and any errors therein do not affect the results of the impact assessment.

The minimum MECP limit of 55 dBA was assumed to apply at POR2. The elevated values reported in Table 4.4 and Table 6.1 are incorrect. This is a conservative estimate for the existing ambient daytime sound levels as the actual background levels are likely higher, based on the measured background levels at POR-5 (NR2). This does not affect the results of the impact assessment.

The inclusion of Pages 89 to 94 and 96 was an error. These adjusted calculations were not used in the assessment and any errors therein do not affect the results of the impact assessment.

MECP status

Complete.

Ministry of Transportation

Based on the information provided, the MTO has no further concerns with this, and MTO is therefore satisfied with the EA documentation provided.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

We have no concerns with the EA report.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Hamilton Wentworth Catholic District School Board

We have completed our review of the environment assessment report and that we have no comments.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

OMAFRA has no comments.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Table 2: Public comment summary table

Comment #1

Resident: As a concerned citizen of the Empire Victory community, I plead you not to approve the expansion of the Terrapure Stoney Creek Facility. Many new neighborhoods and families now live within close proximity of the site. The site should be closed as soon as possible and turned into green space as did the adjacent site. Although studies say there is no smell or adverse issues, I can tell you if you live here and spend day and nights here you will smell it every so often (what are we inhaling exactly?).

Thank you for taking into consideration the people that live around this facility when making a decision.

Proponent’s response

Land Use and Residential Development

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on existing and approved/planned uses in the vicinity of the Site was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no changes to existing or future land uses (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.4.1 of the SCRF EA Report). As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, the following existing impact management measures utilized at the SC RF will continue to be implemented with the proposed Undertaking:

• Maintain minimum 30 m buffers for nuisance reduction.
• Landfill operations measures to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour.
• Maintain landfill operation best management practices and impact management measures, such as the stormwater management, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures to ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated.

Although there are already visual screening elements at the SCRF, the Site design will include additional screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which will mitigate visual impact and noise.

Closure Planning

As noted in Section 6.6 of the EA Report, the final end use of the Site during post-closure will reflect the City of Hamilton land use planning controls, which currently intends for the Site to become open space and/or recreational uses.

Odour Management and Monitoring

It is a priority for Terrapure to operate in a way that is respectful and considerate of our neighbours. Anyone who experiences an odour is asked to contact Terrapure’s 24/7 Community Response Line (905-561-0305), which the company promotes actively to the neighbouring community. Currently, Terrapure receives a limited number of odour calls, all of which are investigated and documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report, as well as being reported on to the complainant.

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on odour was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the Site is unlikely to contribute to significant odour issues in the area since the Site is not permitted to receive putrescible waste (i.e., organic material that can break down and cause odours) and existing best management practices will continue (Sections 5.4.1.1.1.4, 6.2.1.4). As well, the Site will continue to document odour complaints and investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to the Site operations (Section 6.2.1.4).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that would require the preparation of an odour management and mitigation plan to ensure ongoing odour best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed.

Comment #2

Resident: I recently received the notice for the environmental assessment to increase the capacity of the SCRF. When I purchased my home in 2016, I was informed that the SCRF would be closed in five years (2021). I wanted to know if this was still the trajectory with this current request.

Proponent’s response

Closure Planning

Terrapure has not communicated a projected closure date of 2021. As noted in Section 6.2.6 of the EA Report, the Site could reach capacity in as little as 10 years assuming the maximum allowable fill rate, or approximately 13 years using the average fill rate. Allowing for up to an additional 2 years to achieve Site closure, it is anticipated that the operating stage of the SCRF would be between approximately 10-15 years.

It should be noted that these values represent estimates based on currently available information and may change depending on the operating conditions encountered at the Site.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

Comment #3

Resident: I am writing you with reference to the plan for continuing the use of land fill site at the above-mentioned address. I would like to request you to close this site for ever enough is enough.

This area is no more away from the general public or away from the city and the garbage coming to this site is a serious health risk for the people living around it. Industrial waste has very bad environmental effects.

You should come in the area on a hot day and feel the bad smell of the industrial waste.

Proponent’s response

Impacts to Surrounding Community and Environment

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on the surrounding community and the environment were assessed and are documented in Section 6 of the EA. As noted in Section 6.8, the proposed Undertaking, with specific impact management measures and monitoring programs in place, will have low net effects on all environmental components and will have a positive economic effect on the community.

Odour Management and Monitoring

It is a priority for Terrapure to operate in a way that is respectful and considerate of our neighbours. Anyone who experiences an odour is asked to contact Terrapure’s 24/7 Community Response Line (905-561-0305), which the company promotes actively to the neighbouring community. Currently, Terrapure receives a limited number of odour calls, all of which are investigated and documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report, as well as being reported on to the complainant.

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on odour was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the Site is unlikely to contribute to significant odour issues in the area since the Site is not permitted to receive putrescible waste (i.e., organic material that can break down and cause odours) and existing best management practices will continue (Sections 5.4.1.1.1.4, 6.2.1.4). As well, the Site will continue to document odour complaints and investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to the Site operations (Section 6.2.1.4).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with the detailed impact assessment completed by the proponent.

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s response.

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that would require the preparation of an odour management and mitigation plan to ensure ongoing odour best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed.

Comment #4

Resident: There is nobody that I have spoken too in my neighbourhood that supports the expansion of the DUMP. It is an eyesore, it is smelly in the summer, and it needs to be shut down! Terrapure has been putting on information sessions for the past year and literally every person that walks in tells them to shut it down, nobody supports it. I hope Ontario hears the cries of its residents. Shut it down please!

Proponent’s response

Visual Impacts

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls (Section 6.2.2.1).

Odour Management and Monitoring

It is a priority for Terrapure to operate in a way that is respectful and considerate of our neighbours. Anyone who experiences an odour is asked to contact Terrapure’s 24/7 Community Response Line (905-561-0305), which the company promotes actively to the neighbouring community. Currently, Terrapure receives a limited number of odour calls, all of which are investigated and documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report, as well as being reported on to the complainant.

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on odour was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the Site is unlikely to contribute to significant odour issues in the area since the Site is not permitted to receive putrescible waste (i.e., organic material that can break down and cause odours) and existing best management practices will continue (Sections 5.4.1.1.1.4, 6.2.1.4). As well, the Site will continue to document odour complaints and investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to the Site operations (Section 6.2.1.4).

Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation has been an important component of this EA. A wide variety of consultation activities were carried out throughout the preparation of the EA. The consultation activities provided multiple opportunities and a wide-range of methods for review agencies, Indigenous communities, and public stakeholders to be involved and provide comments for consideration.

More specifically, in addition to the open house held during the Terms of References, Terrapure held three open houses at key milestones of this EA to inform the public and receive comments/ feedback. All public comments received and how Terrapure considered them are included in Table 7.6 and Table 7.9 of the EA.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s response.

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that would require the preparation of an odour management and mitigation plan to ensure ongoing odour best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed.

The ministry is satisfied that proper mitigation measures have been included to address the outstanding public concerns.

Comment #5

Resident: I am curious as to the number of residential homes built within a ½ kilometer circle around the current Terrapure dump since 2010. From my count, we have over 850 new residential homes in the direct neighbourhood. Based on average people per house that’s over 3,500 people! This is ridiculous, how many other landfills in Ontario are surrounded by this much residential development? Please shut it down!

Proponent’s response

Land Use and Residential Development

The existing and proposed residential and commercial properties in the Site Study Area (500 m) and Local Study Area (1 km) are described in Section 4.2.2.1 of the SCRF EA Report. Based on the City of Hamilton’s filed registered and draft approved plans of subdivision, there are approximately 5,800 existing (i.e. registered) residential units within the Local Study Area and approximately 1,000 proposed (i.e. draft approved) residential units within the Local Study Area.

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on existing and approved/ planned uses in the vicinity of the Site was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no changes to existing or future land uses (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.4.1 of the SCRF EA Report). As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, the following existing impact management measures utilized at the SCRF will continue to be implemented with the proposed Undertaking:

• Maintain minimum 30 m buffers for nuisance reduction.
• Landfill operations measures to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour.
• Maintain landfill operation best management practices and impact management measures, such as the stormwater management, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures to ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

Comment #6

Resident: As a Stoney Creek mountain resident, I am writing to express my opposition to any expansion of the Stoney Creek mountain landfill, currently operated by Terrapure Environmental. I have seen all the arguments in favour, touting benefits ad nauseum. No thanks. Local residents who have to put up with its presence and negative effects forever more are not swayed, will never be swayed, never wanted it or accepted it in the first place. We are talking about a massive dump in the city, surrounded by tens of thousands of people as the population expands East. Close it ASAP as was negotiated in good faith, not expanded via endless requesting, re-requesting, re-re-requesting, discussing, beating the issue to death and wearing out the rotating bench of politicians. Incinerate and convert it to power, send it elsewhere, force the companies using it to super-aggressively sort and recycle, they must invent solutions other than piling it in a local dump near where we all sleep.

Proponent’s response

Impacts to Surrounding Community and Environment

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on the surrounding community and the environment were assessed and are documented in Section 6 of the EA. As noted in Section 6.8, the proposed Undertaking, with specific impact management measures and monitoring programs in place, will have low net effects on all environmental components and will have a positive economic effect on the community.

Land Use and Residential Development

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on existing and approved/planned uses in the vicinity of the Site was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no changes to existing or future land uses (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.4.1 of the SCRF EA Report). As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, the following existing impact management measures utilized at the SCRF will continue to be implemented with the proposed Undertaking:

• Maintain minimum 30 m buffers for nuisance reduction.
• Landfill operations measures to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour.
• Maintain landfill operation best management practices and impact management measures, such as the stormwater management, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures to ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated.

Although there are already visual screening elements at the SCRF, the Site design will include additional screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which will mitigate visual impact and noise.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with the detailed impact assessment completed by the proponent.

Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

Comment #7

Business: I am writing to you today to communicate our support for Terrapure Environmental and its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility in Hamilton.

As you may know, Terrapure provides a broad range of industrial waste management, environmental and recycling services. Terrapure has a spotless track-record of managing the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, which is unique in that it receives the by-products from industries like steel production in Hamilton and regional infrastructure projects.

Aldo Electric has worked with Terrapure for over 19 years providing electrical services at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

If Terrapure is successful in securing approval for its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, it will continue to play a vital role supporting local industries and the regional economy. Industries and infrastructure projects such as new transit stations or institutional expansions typically produce the residual materials that are received at Terrapure's Stoney Creek facility.

Terrapure has excellent relationships with the City of Hamilton and the surrounding community, especially through the Heritage Green Community Trust, which is fully funded by Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

The proposed changes will retain the same overall size of the facility and would not change the type of materials that are currently accepted at the facility. Terrapure has communicated this to the community in has had extensive consultations to ensure there is no adverse impact on the site's neighbours before any changes are made.

The Provincial Government is committed to Ontario being “Open For Business” and Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility is a perfect example of supporting that initiative because it is needed to support the Hamilton and regional economies. Given the growing demand for these types of facilities, Terrapure's proposal to add capacity would ensure that another new disposal facility is not needed in the region.

Minister, we thank you for your consideration and we would appreciate your support in this matter as it proceeds.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #8

Business: I am writing to you today to communicate our support for Terrapure Environmental and its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility in Hamilton.

As you may know, Terrapure provides a broad range of industrial waste management, environmental and recycling services. Terrapure has a spotless track-record of managing the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, which is unique in that it receives the by-products from industries like steel production in Hamilton and regional infrastructure projects.

Estrada’s Cleaning Services Inc. has worked with Terrapure for over 8 years providing cleaning services at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

If Terrapure is successful in securing approval for its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, it will continue to play a vital role supporting local industries and the regional economy. Industries and infrastructure projects such as new transit stations or institutional expansions typically produce the residual materials that are received at Terrapure's Stoney Creek facility.

Terrapure has excellent relationships with the City of Hamilton and the surrounding community, especially through the Heritage Green Community Trust, which is fully funded by Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

The proposed changes will retain the same overall size of the facility and would not change the type of materials that are currently accepted at the facility. Terrapure has communicated this to the community in has had extensive consultations to ensure there is no adverse impact on the site's neighbours before any changes are made.

The Provincial Government is committed to Ontario being “Open For Business” and Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility is a perfect example of supporting that initiative because it is needed to support the Hamilton and regional economies. Given the growing demand for these types of facilities, Terrapure's proposal to add capacity would ensure that another new disposal facility is not needed in the region.

Minister, we thank you for your consideration and we would appreciate your support in this matter as it proceeds.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #9

Business: I am writing to you today to communicate our support for Terrapure Environmental and its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility in Hamilton.

As you may know, Terrapure provides a broad range of industrial waste management, environmental and recycling services. Terrapure has a spotless track-record of managing the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, which is unique in that it receives the by-products from industries like steel production in Hamilton and regional infrastructure projects.

Joseph Haulage has worked with Terrapure for over the past 30 years providing transport services at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

If Terrapure is successful in securing approval for its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, it will continue to play a vital role supporting local industries and the regional economy. Industries and infrastructure projects such as new transit stations or institutional expansions typically produce the residual materials that are received at Terrapure's Stoney Creek facility.

Terrapure has excellent relationships with the City of Hamilton and the surrounding community, especially through the Heritage Green Community Trust, which is fully funded by Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

The proposed changes will retain the same overall size of the facility and would not change the type of materials that are currently accepted at the facility. Terrapure has communicated this to the community in has had extensive consultations to ensure there is no adverse impact on the site's neighbours before any changes are made.

The Provincial Government is committed to Ontario being “Open For Business” and Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility is a perfect example of supporting that initiative because it is needed to support the Hamilton and regional economies. Given the growing demand for these types of facilities, Terrapure's proposal to add capacity would ensure that another new disposal facility is not needed in the region.

Minister, we thank you for your consideration and we would appreciate your support in this matter as it proceeds.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #10

Business: I am writing to you today to communicate our support for Terrapure Environmental and its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility in Hamilton.

As you may know, Terrapure provides a broad range of industrial waste management, environmental and recycling services. Terrapure has a spotless track-record of managing the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, which is unique in that it receives the by-products from industries like steel production in Hamilton and regional infrastructure projects.

Vector Signs Inc. has worked with Terrapure for over the past year providing services at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

If Terrapure is successful in securing approval for its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, it will continue to play a vital role supporting local industries and the regional economy. Industries and infrastructure projects such as new transit stations or institutional expansions typically produce the residual materials that are received at Terrapure's Stoney Creek facility.

Terrapure has excellent relationships with the City of Hamilton and the surrounding community, especially through the Heritage Green Community Trust, which is fully funded by Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

The proposed changes will retain the same overall size of the facility and would not change the type of materials that are currently accepted at the facility. Terrapure has communicated this to the community in has had extensive consultations to ensure there is no adverse impact on the site's neighbours before any changes are made.

The Provincial Government is committed to Ontario being “Open For Business” and Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility is a perfect example of supporting that initiative because it is needed to support the Hamilton and regional economies. Given the growing demand for these types of facilities, Terrapure's proposal to add capacity would ensure that another new disposal facility is not needed in the region.

Minister, we thank you for your consideration and we would appreciate your support in this matter as it proceeds.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #11

Business: I am writing to you today to communicate our support for Terrapure Environmental and its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility in Hamilton.

As you may know, Terrapure provides a broad range of industrial waste management, environmental and recycling services. Terrapure has a spotless track-record of managing the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, which is unique in that it receives the by-products from industries like steel production in Hamilton and regional infrastructure projects.

Maximum Fence has worked with Terrapure for over 5 years providing electrical services at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

If Terrapure is successful in securing approval for its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, it will continue to play a vital role supporting local industries and the regional economy. Industries and infrastructure projects such as new transit stations or institutional expansions typically produce the residual materials that are received at Terrapure's Stoney Creek facility.

Terrapure has excellent relationships with the City of Hamilton and the surrounding community, especially through the Heritage Green Community Trust, which is fully funded by Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

The proposed changes will retain the same overall size of the facility and would not change the type of materials that are currently accepted at the facility. Terrapure has communicated this to the community in has had extensive consultations to ensure there is no adverse impact on the site's neighbours before any changes are made.

The Provincial Government is committed to Ontario being “Open For Business” and Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility is a perfect example of supporting that initiative because it is needed to support the Hamilton and regional economies. Given the growing demand for these types of facilities, Terrapure's proposal to add capacity would ensure that another new disposal facility is not needed in the region.

Minister, we thank you for your consideration and we would appreciate your support in this matter as it proceeds.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #12

Business: I am writing to you today to communicate our support for Terrapure Environmental and its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility in Hamilton.

As you may know, Terrapure provides a broad range of industrial waste management, environmental and recycling services. Terrapure has a spotless track-record of managing the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, which is unique in that it receives the by-products from industries like steel production in Hamilton and regional infrastructure projects.

Terrapure is a member of the Stoney Creek Chamber of Commerce.

If Terrapure is successful in securing approval for its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, it will continue to play a vital role supporting local industries and the regional economy. Industries and infrastructure projects such as new transit stations or institutional expansions typically produce the residual materials that are received at Terrapure's Stoney Creek facility.

Terrapure has excellent relationships with the City of Hamilton and the surrounding community, especially through the Heritage Green Community Trust, which is fully funded by Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

The proposed changes will retain the same overall size of the facility and would not change the type of materials that are currently accepted at the facility. Terrapure has communicated this to the community and has had extensive consultations to ensure there is no adverse impact on the site's neighbours before any changes are made.

The Provincial Government is committed to Ontario being “Open For Business” and Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility is a perfect example of supporting that initiative because it is needed to support the Hamilton and regional economies. Given the growing demand for these types of facilities, Terrapure's proposal to add capacity would ensure that another new disposal facility is not needed in the region.

Minister, we thank you for your consideration and we would appreciate your support in this matter as it proceeds.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #13

Business: I am writing to you today to communicate our support for Terrapure Environmental and its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility in Hamilton.

As you may know, Terrapure provides a broad range of industrial waste management, environmental and recycling services. Terrapure has a spotless track-record of managing the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, which is unique in that it receives the by-products from industries like steel production in Hamilton and regional infrastructure projects.

Travale Tires and Services Inc. has worked with Terrapure for the past year providing services for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

If Terrapure is successful in securing approval for its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, it will continue to play a vital role supporting local industries and the regional economy. Industries and infrastructure projects such as new transit stations or institutional expansions typically produce the residual materials that are received at Terrapure's Stoney Creek facility.

Terrapure has excellent relationships with the City of Hamilton and the surrounding community, especially through the Heritage Green Community Trust, which is fully funded by Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

The proposed changes will retain the same overall size of the facility and would not change the type of materials that are currently accepted at the facility. Terrapure has communicated this to the community and has had extensive consultations to ensure there is no adverse impact on the site's neigh hours before any changes are made.

The Provincial Government is committed to Ontario being “Open For Business” and Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility is a perfect example of supporting that initiative because it is needed to support the Hamilton and regional economies. Given the growing demand for these types of facilities, Terrapure’s proposal to add capacity would ensure that another new disposal facility is not needed in the region.

Minister, we thank you for your consideration and we would appreciate your support in this matter as it proceeds.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #14

Hamilton Chamber of Commerce: I am writing to you today to communicate our support for our long-time member, Terrapure Environmental, and its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

As you may know, Terrapure provides a broad range of industrial waste management, environmental and recycling services. Terrapure has a spotless track record of managing the Stoney Creek Regional Facility. Terrapure has excellent relationships with the City of Hamilton and the surrounding community, especially through the Heritage Green Community Trust, which is fully funded by Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

If Terrapure is successful in securing approval for its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, it will continue to play a vital role supporting local industries and the regional economy. What makes the Stoney Creek facility unique is that it receives the by-products from industries like steel production or from regional infrastructure projects.

The proposed changes will retain the same overall size of the facility and would not change the type of materials that are currently accepted at the facility. Terrapure has communicated this to the community and has had extensive consultations to ensure there is no adverse impact on the site's neighbours.

The Provincial Government is committed to Ontario being “Open For Business” and Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility fits well with your mandate. Given the growing demand for these types of facilities, Terrapure's proposal to add capacity would ensure that another new disposal facility is not needed in the region.

We thank you for your consideration and would appreciate your support in this matter as it proceeds.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #15

Business: I am writing to you today to communicate our support for Terrapure Environmental and its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility in Hamilton.

As you may know, Terrapure provides a broad range of industrial waste management, environmental and recycling services. Terrapure has a spotless track-record of managing the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, which is unique in that it receives the by-products from industries like steel production in Hamilton and regional infrastructure projects.

Murray Hydronics Limited has worked with Terrapure for several years providing services at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

If Terrapure is successful in securing approval for its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, it will continue to play a vital role supporting local industries and the regional economy. Industries and infrastructure projects such as new transit stations or institutional expansions typically produce the residual materials that are received at Terrapure's Stoney Creek facility.

Terrapure has excellent relationships with the City of Hamilton and the surrounding community, especially through the Heritage Green Community Trust, which is fully funded by Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

The proposed changes will retain the same overall size of the facility and would not change the type of materials that are currently accepted at the facility. Terrapure has communicated this to the community and has had extensive consultations to ensure there is no adverse impact on the site's neighbours before any changes are made.

The Provincial Government is committed to Ontario being “Open For Business” and Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility is a perfect example of supporting that initiative because it is needed to support the Hamilton and regional economies. Given the growing demand for these types of facilities, Terrapure's proposal to add capacity would ensure that another new disposal facility is not needed in the region.

Minister, we thank you for your consideration and we would appreciate your support in this matter as it proceeds.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #16

Flamborough Chamber of Commerce: I am writing to you today to communicate our support for Terrapure Environmental and its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility in Hamilton.

As you may know, Terrapure provides a broad range of industrial waste management, environmental and recycling services. Terrapure has a spotless track-record of managing the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, which is unique in that it receives the by-products from industries like steel production in Hamilton and regional infrastructure projects.

Terrapure is a member of the Flamborough Chamber of Commerce.

If Terrapure is successful in securing approval for its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, it will continue to play a vital role supporting local industries and the regional economy. Industries and infrastructure projects such as new transit stations or institutional expansions typically produce the residual materials that are received at Terrapure's Stoney Creek facility.

Terrapure has excellent relationships with the City of Hamilton and the surrounding community, especially through the Heritage Green Community Trust, which is fully funded by Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

The proposed changes will retain the same overall size of the facility and would not change the type of materials that are currently accepted at the facility. Terrapure has communicated this to the community in has had extensive consultations to ensure there is no adverse impact on the site's neighbours before any changes are made.

The Provincial Government is committed to Ontario being “Open For Business” and Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility is a perfect example of supporting that initiative because it is needed to support the Hamilton and regional economies. Given the growing demand for these types of facilities, Terrapure's proposal to add capacity would ensure that another new disposal facility is not needed in the region.

Minister, we thank you for your consideration and we would appreciate your support in this matter as it proceeds.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #17

Business: I am writing to you today to communicate our support for Terrapure Environmental and its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility in Hamilton.

As you may know, Terrapure provides a broad range of industrial waste management, environmental and recycling services. Terrapure has a spotless track-record of managing the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, which is unique in that it receives the by-products from industries like steel production in Hamilton and regional infrastructure projects.

Oakridge Group Inc. has worked with Terrapure for over 12 years providing services at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

If Terrapure is successful in securing approval for its Environmental Assessment to add capacity to the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, it will continue to play a vital role supporting local industries and the regional economy. Industries and infrastructure projects such as new transit stations or institutional expansions typically produce the residual materials that arc received at Terrapure's Stoney Creek facility.

Terrapure has excellent relationships with the City of Hamilton and the surrounding community, especially through the Heritage Green Community Trust, which is fully funded by Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

The proposed changes will retain the same overall size of the facility and would not change the type of materials that are currently accepted at the facility. Terrapure has communicated this to the community and has had extensive consultations to ensure there is no adverse impact to the site's neighbours before any changes are made.

The Provincial Government is committed to Ontario being “Open For Business” and Terrapure's Stoney Creek Regional Facility is a perfect example of supporting that initiative because it is needed to support the Hamilton and regional economies. Given the growing demand for these types of facilities, Terrapure's proposal to add capacity would ensure that another new disposal facility is not needed in the region.

Minister, we thank you for your consideration and we would appreciate your support in this matter as it proceeds.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #18

Resident: I would like to use this opportunity to express my opinion about Taro dump. I read an article in Stoney Creek news about dump expansion bid and I think that is totally unacceptable to approve an expansion of dump. In the last 10 years, the number of residents housing around dump are skyrocketing and still growing and wouldn't be appropriate to allow expansion, and more poisons to that area. In my opinion, city and government need to work on the closing dump at that location, as soon as possible—not on considering its expansion. I hope that ministries of environment will realize it and accept the vision of slowly closing this dump rather than expanding.

Proponent’s response

Impacts to Surrounding Community and Environment

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on the surrounding community and the environment were assessed and is documented in Section 6 of the EA. As noted in Section 6.8, the proposed Undertaking, with specific impact management measures and monitoring programs in place, will have low net effects on all environmental components and will have a positive economic effect on the community.

Land Use & Residential Development

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on existing and approved/planned uses in the vicinity of the Site was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no changes to existing or future land uses (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.4.1 of the SCRF EA Report). As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, the following existing impact management measures utilized at the SCRF will continue to be implemented with the proposed Undertaking:

• Maintain minimum 30 m buffers for nuisance reduction.
• Landfill operations measures to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour.
• Maintain landfill operation best management practices and impact management measures, such as the stormwater management, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures to ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated.

Although there are already visual screening elements at the SCRF, the Site design will include additional screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which will mitigate visual impact and noise.

Human Health

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on human health were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that with the implementation of the proposed landfill design and mitigation measures to manage leachate, groundwater, surface water and air quality, no net effect to human health are anticipated (Section 6.2.3.2).

As noted in Table 7.7 of the Final EA Report, the Hamilton Public Health Services reviewed the Draft EA Report, including the Human Health Impact Assessment Report and staff had no comments.

In addition, the Hamilton Public Health has reviewed all of the extensive health and environmental monitoring data Terrapure has accumulated over 20 years in existence and confirmed there is nothing that poses a risk to the community.

Finally, Terrapure has committed to continue to undertake the annual Community Health Assessment Review as part of the Annual Monitoring Report for the SCRF (Section 8.3).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with the detailed impact assessment completed by the proponent.

Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

The Ministry is satisfied with the EA's evaluation of potential effects on human health.

Comment #19

Resident: My name is [redacted] and I’ve been following the debate regarding the expansion of the Terrapure (TP) facility in Stoney Creek. My original thought was to review the environmental assessment (EA) conducted by TP and provide you with some sound comments on why I am against this expansion. I went to the TP website to read through the report however I was surprised to see how many sections the full report contained so I selected one section that was 208 pages long. Now while this seems to imply TP did a very thorough EA I believe they had an ulterior intention and that is to intimidate regular local citizens from reading the report.

I have not read the full report however I would still like to express my opinion on this topic.

I’ve lived in the vicinity of the TP site for 3.5 years, I am a strong advocate of environmental protection, and I’m on the committee of the “Friends of Eramosa Karst Conservation Area” and a volunteer for the “Stewards of Redhill” creek cleanup team.

Some of the points of concern:

1. Local residential expansion in the area
2. Not clear on what materials find their way into the fill
3. There was an initial agreement that is now being contested by TP
4. Smell from the area
5. Danger
6. Truck traffic
7. Bruce trail and escarpment encroachment

Additionally I’ve attached an email I received from TP when I asked them to provide a list of materials that the fill site accepts. It can be seen in the email that the list is not exhaustive by any means. There’s a line that states they accept institutional and industrial waste including petroleum contaminated soils, what other contaminates find their way into the landfill even though TP state non-hazardous materials are not accepted, accidental contamination or ignored screening conditions can exist.

Please do what you can in your power to refuse TP the right to expand their site.

Proponent’s response

EA Documentation 

The EA documentation was prepared in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park’s Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments. As such, an executive summary, containing a brief summary of the main points of the document is included in the EA Report.

Impacts to Surrounding Community and Environment

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on the surrounding community and the environment were assessed and are documented in Section 6 of the EA. As noted in Section 6.8, the proposed Undertaking, with specific impact management measures and monitoring programs in place, will have low net effects on all environmental components and will have a positive economic effect on the community.

Land Use and Residential Development

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on existing and approved/planned uses in the vicinity of the Site was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no changes to existing or future land uses (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.4.1 of the SCRF EA Report). As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, the following existing impact management measures utilized at the SCRF will continue to be implemented with the proposed Undertaking:

• Maintain minimum 30 m buffers for nuisance reduction.
• Landfill operations measures to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour.
• Maintain landfill operation best management practices and impact management measures, such as the stormwater management, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures to ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated.

Although there are already visual screening elements at the SCRF, the Site design will include additional screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which will mitigate visual impact and noise.

Waste Acceptance Material

As noted in Section 6.2.6, the SCRF will continue to accept post-diversion, solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material from sources from within the Province of Ontario. The SCRF will no longer accept industrial fill material.

Detailed records of the residual materials accepted at the Site each year are documented in the Annual Monitoring Reports. Table 6.22 provides a summary of the residual materials accepted at the Site and their approximate fraction of the overall total based on records from 1997 to 2017.

To ensure only permitted materials are accepted at the SCRF, Terrapure uses a Waste Profile system. Each customer delivering materials are required to have a Waste Profile which includes details such as what materials they are disposing of and why they can’t recover or divert the material themselves.

Terrapure also screens, records and verified the materials match the customer’s approved Waste Profile. If a load contains unacceptable materials, it is rejected. See Section 1.2 for existing operations and permitted materials.

Odour Management and Monitoring

It is a priority for Terrapure to operate in a way that is respectful and considerate of our neighbours. Anyone who experiences an odour is asked to contact Terrapure’s 24/7 Community Response Line (905-561-0305), which the company promotes actively to the neighbouring community. Currently, Terrapure receives a limited number of odour calls, all of which are investigated and documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report, as well as being reported on to the complainant.

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on odour was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the Site is unlikely to contribute to significant odour issues in the area since the Site is not permitted to receive putrescible waste (i.e., organic material that can break down and cause odours) and existing best management practices will continue (Sections 5.4.1.1.1.4, 6.2.1.4). As well, the Site will continue to document odour complaints and investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to the Site operations (Section 6.2.1.4).

Danger/Human Health

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on human health were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that with the implementation of the proposed landfill design and mitigation measures to manage leachate, groundwater, surface water and air quality, no net effect to human health are anticipated (Section 6.2.3.2).

Hamilton Public Health has reviewed all of the extensive health and environmental monitoring data Terrapure has accumulated over 20 years in existence and confirmed there is nothing that poses a risk to the community.

Finally, Terrapure has committed to continue to undertake the Community Health Assessment Review as part of the Annual Monitoring Report for the SCRF (Section 8.3).

Traffic

The potential effect on traffic was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the proposed Undertaking will have no effect on traffic since the Undertaking will not change the volume of SCRF truck traffic from the current volumes (Section 6.2.3.1).

Niagara Escarpment

Terrapure consulted with the Niagara Escarpment Commission during the Terms of Reference. The Niagara Escarpment Commission determined that since the subject lands are outside of the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area, there was no need for them to be a commenting agency during the SCRF EA.

In addition, the Hamilton Conservation Authority, has been consulted throughout the SCRF EA as a review agency, including reviewing the draft and final EA Report. In their review of the Final EA, Hamilton Conservation Authority stated, “We are satisfied with the EA and have no objections to its approval”.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

The ministry is satisfied with the EA's evaluation of potential effects on human health.

Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Terrapure has amended the EA to include a commitment to prepare a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework describing proposed driver training and awareness strategies, in consultation with the City of Hamilton; and to maintain the Framework during construction and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to require the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization; as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized.

Comment #20

Resident: Terrapure needs to honour its 2013 agreement, and not double its original size. The people of Stoney Creek and Hamilton are tired of being treated like chumps. I oppose any increase to the site footprint or height.

Proponent’s response

Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the Undertaking is to increase the approved capacity of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) by 3,680,000 m³ so that Terrapure can continue to receive post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. The proposed Undertaking will allow the facility to maintain its standing as a regional service facility and to provide continued service for local and regional customers.

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Height, Site Footprint and Visual Impact

As described in Section 6.1.1., the proposed capacity increase will extend the peak height of the SCRF by approximately 2.5 m. The horizontal limits will extend further toward the north, back to the original approved footprint of the SCRF. The area currently approved to accept industrial fill will be replaced with a base liner system to accept residual material.

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to meet or mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments. The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Comment #21

Resident: Terrapure needs to honour its 2013 agreement, and not double its original size. The people of Stoney Creek and Hamilton are tired of being treated like chumps. I oppose any increase to the site footprint or height.

Proponent’s response

Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the Undertaking is to increase the approved capacity of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) by 3,680,000 m³ so that Terrapure can continue to receive post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. The proposed Undertaking will allow the facility to maintain its standing as a regional service facility and to provide continued service for local and regional customers.

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Height, Site Footprint and Visual Impact

As described in Section 6.1.1., the proposed capacity increase will extend the peak height of the SCRF by approximately 2.5 m. The horizontal limits will extend further toward the north, back to the original approved footprint of the SCRF. The area currently approved to accept industrial fill will be replaced with a base liner system to accept residual material.

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to meet or mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments. The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Comment #22

Resident: As a nearby resident (since 1979) of the Terrapure site here in Stoney Creek, I believe its closure is long overdue…totally inappropriate for it to be amongst a residential area as it is.

Proponent’s response

Impacts to Surrounding Community and Environment

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on the surrounding community and the environment were assessed and are documented in Section 6 of the EA. As noted in Section 6.8, the proposed Undertaking, with specific impact management measures and monitoring programs in place, will have low net effects on all environmental components and will have a positive economic effect on the community.

Land Use and Residential Development

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on existing and approved/planned uses in the vicinity of the Site was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no changes to existing or future land uses (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.4.1 of the SCRF EA Report). As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, the following existing impact management measures utilized at the SCRF will continue to be implemented with the proposed Undertaking:

• Maintain minimum 30 m buffers for nuisance reduction.
• Landfill operations measures to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour.
• Maintain landfill operation best management practices and impact management measures, such as the stormwater management, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures to ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated.

Although there are already visual screening elements at the SCRF, the Site design will include additional screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which will mitigate visual impact and noise.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with the detailed impact assessment completed by the proponent.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

Comment #23

Resident: As a citizen of Stoney Creek, I am very against the expansion of the Taro dump. They reneged on the 2013 agreement. Terrapure needs to honour this 2013 agreement. I oppose any increase. It is too big now and the odour in the summer is terrible. I want this site closed ASAP.

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Odour Management and Monitoring

It is a priority for Terrapure to operate in a way that is respectful and considerate of our neighbours. Anyone who experiences an odour is asked to contact Terrapure’s 24/7 Community Response Line (905-561-0305), which the company promotes actively to the neighbouring community. Currently, Terrapure receives a limited number of odour calls, all of which are investigated and documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report, as well as being reported on to the complainant.

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on odour was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the Site is unlikely to contribute to significant odour issues in the area since the Site is not permitted to receive putrescible waste (i.e., organic material that can break down and cause odours) and existing best management practices will continue (Sections 5.4.1.1.1.4, 6.2.1.4). As well, the Site will continue to document odour complaints and investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to the Site operations (Section 6.2.1.4).

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to meet or mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments. The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that would require the preparation of an odour management and mitigation plan to ensure ongoing odour best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed.

Comment #24

Resident: My name is [redacted], and I live at [redacted] on Stoney Creek Mountain. I have lived here since 1996 before this Taro Dump opened. I implore you to close this dump A.S.A.P. for the following reasons.

1. This Taro dump was only supposed to be open to 2016 (20 yrs.), with a max. capacity of 6 million cubic metres.
2. The greedy owners whether it's Phillips Environmental, Newalta Waste Management, or Terrapure are continually changing the criterion to keep this Taro dump eyesore open.
3. In 1996 there was little residential housing anywhere close to this dump, but since there is a tremendous growth of houses all around this Taro Dump.
4. I don't think this government wants to be responsible for future health problems that could befall children and future generations to come in proximity to Taro Dump.
5. This is supposed to be a non-hazardous waste facility, but who knows without the government, not Terrapure doing regularly scheduled deep core drilling at this site.
6. Waste 22 metres from ground level is not an eyesore, but unacceptable if you live near this dump.
7. Many of the people whom now live close to Taro come from outside the area, because the houses are so much cheaper than their former abodes. Therefore, how much they were told about this dump is conjecture.
8. Terrapure wants to get approval to reopen a capped portion near Mud St., there's a reason it's capped, and it should stay that way. Mrs. Weller, I hope you see that Terrapure should honour their 2013 agreement, and you reject their proposal. Please just put yourself in the position of would you yourself live near this Taro Dump. My guess is none of the owners of Terrapure, or people that run this site live close to Taro.

Proponent’s response

Original Environmental Assessment Approval

The SCRF was approved in 1996 for 10 million tonnes. The planning assumptions used as part of the original Environmental Assessment prepared in 1996 were that waste receipts would be an average of 500,000 tonnes per year for about 20 years. As part of this EA a Business Case Analysis was undertaken and it was concluded that there is economic opportunity associated with the ability of the existing SCRF to continue to accept additional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.

Impacts to Surrounding Community and Environment

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on the surrounding community and the environment were assessed and are documented in Section 6 of the EA. As noted in Section 6.8, the proposed Undertaking, with specific impact management measures and monitoring programs in place, will have low net effects on all environmental components and will have a positive economic effect on the community.

Land Use and Residential Development

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on existing and approved/planned uses in the vicinity of the Site was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no changes to existing or future land uses (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.4.1 of the SCRF EA Report). As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, the following existing impact management measures utilized at the SCRF will continue to be implemented with the proposed Undertaking:

• Maintain minimum 30 m buffers for nuisance reduction.
• Landfill operations measures to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour.
• Maintain landfill operation best management practices and impact management measures, such as the stormwater management, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures to ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated.

Although there are already visual screening elements at the SCRF, the Site design will include additional screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which will mitigate visual impact and noise.

Human Health

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on human health were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that with the implementation of the proposed landfill design and mitigation measures to manage leachate, groundwater, surface water and air quality, no net effect to human health are anticipated (Section 6.2.3.2).

Hamilton Public Health has reviewed all of the extensive health and environmental monitoring data Terrapure has accumulated over 20 years in existence and confirmed there is nothing that poses a risk to the community.

It should be noted that, as included in Table 7.7 of the Final EA Report, the Hamilton Public Health Services staff had no formal comments on the Draft EA Report. In addition, Hamilton Public Health Services staff did not provide formal detailed comments on the Final EA Report.

Finally, Terrapure has committed to continue to undertake the Community Health Assessment Review as part of the Annual Monitoring Report for the SCRF (Section 8.3).

Existing Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The ministry is satisfied with the detailed impact assessment completed by the proponent.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The ministry is recommending a condition to ensure that the local community liaison committee continues through construction and operation of the landfill.

The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

The Ministry is satisfied with the EA's evaluation of potential effects on human health.

Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments. The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Comment #25

Resident: I wanted to address the desire of Terrapure to expand their dump in Stoney Creek. I am relatively new to the Stoney Creek area (one year) and so have not been a part of the history of this facility. However, I have been reading the expansion proposals and trying to follow the discussion.

I did try to contact Terrapure via their website and proposal posted online to find out exactly what they receive in their dump. The smell on warm summer days is awful to put it bluntly!!

Therefore, I tried to get some answers from Terrapure and no one has answered my questions or contacted me as I requested. That always puts up red flags in my mind…why no answers?

Secondly when the organic composting facility in Hamilton had problems with an ongoing smell, that facility was closed temporarily until the smell could be rectified. That certainly did not happen with complaints from the residents who live close to the Terrapure facility.

The facility has problems with their enclosure fencing…in winds it is always blowing around and poorly maintained. How will this be any better if the height is increased? It is unsightly and does not add to the beautiful area that we live in. There is a wonderful sports park across the road and the dump is already an eyesore.

With this expansion proposal, residual waste will be closer to housing and schools. I am not convinced that Terrapure's proposal is safe in light of the closeness of the housing development nearby and the school. Their secretiveness and unwillingness to answer questions again raises red flags. There was a commitment to the community in 2013 to fulfill certain agreements if the community allowed an increase of height at that time. Those requirements have not been met as far as I can figure from the maps etc so again the trustworthiness of the word of this company has to be considered.

I do not agree with the increase in height. My family and neighbours are already bearing the smell and the unsightliness of this facility. I do not wish to be walking on the beautiful trails across the road from an increasing mound of industrial waste (whatever this consists of as no one at Terrapure will answer this question). To be honest, I do not care how much money Terrapure pours into the community…this facility should not be allowed to increase beyond its original specifications.

Proponent’s response

We do not have any record of [redacted] submitting a comment through our website. It is however, a priority for Terrapure to operate in a way that is respectful and considerate of our neighbours. Anyone who experiences an odour is asked to contact Terrapure’s 24/7 Community Response Line (905-561-0305), which the company promotes actively to the neighbouring community. All complaints are investigated and documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report, as well as being reported on to the complainant.

Visual Impacts

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls (Section 6.2.2.1).

Land Use and Residential Development

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on existing and approved/planned uses in the vicinity of the Site was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no changes to existing or future land uses (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.4.1 of the SCRF EA Report). As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, the following existing impact management measures utilized at the SCRF will continue to be implemented with the proposed Undertaking:

• Maintain minimum 30 m buffers for nuisance reduction
• Landfill operations measures to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour
• Maintain landfill operation best management practices and impact management measures, such as the stormwater management, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures to ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated

Odour Management and Monitoring

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on odour was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the Site is unlikely to contribute to significant odour issues in the area since the Site is not permitted to receive putrescible waste (i.e., organic material that can break down and cause odours) and existing best management practices will continue (Sections 5.4.1.1.1.4, 6.2.1.4). As well, the Site will continue to document odour complaints and investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to the Site operations (Section 6.2.1.4).

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s response.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that would require the preparation of an odour management and mitigation plan to ensure ongoing odour best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA and is satisfied with this response.

Comment #26

Resident: As residents of Stoney Creek who live just a couple of kilometers from the dump site, we want to express our opposition to any further growth.

Proponent’s response

Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the Undertaking, to increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m³, was established in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report. Terrapure carried out a Business Case Analysis in February 2017 to assess the need for the services it provides to the marketplace. This Business Case Analysis was reviewed and confirmed to still be valid as part of the SCRF EA (see Section 3.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

Impacts to Surrounding Community and Environment

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on the surrounding community and the environment were assessed and are documented in Section 6 of the EA. As noted in Section 6.8, the proposed Undertaking, with specific impact management measures and monitoring programs in place, will have low net effects on all environmental components and will have a positive economic effect on the community.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with the detailed impact assessment completed by the proponent and this response.

Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Comment #27

Resident: We fought against the Taro dump and now we are very concerned about the proposals Terrapure has submitted in our area!

[Redacted] and I feel Terrapure needs to honour the 2013 agreement they made. We both definitely oppose any increase in raising the height and feel it is time for Terrapure to fulfill their obligation to the 2013 commitment. Terrapure is not to be trusted and it is now time to close the site A.S.A.P.!

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Visual Impacts

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls (Section 6.2.2.1).

Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the Undertaking, to increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m³, was established in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report. Terrapure carried out a Business Case Analysis in February 2017 to assess the need for the services it provides to the marketplace. This Business Case Analysis was reviewed and confirmed to still be valid as part of the SCRF EA (see Section 3.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s response.

Comment #28

Resident: Terrapure needs to honour the 2013 agreement. I'm fully opposed to any increase and the site should be closed ASAP!

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the Undertaking, to increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m³, was established in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report. Terrapure carried out a Business Case Analysis in February 2017 to assess the need for the services it provides to the marketplace. This Business Case Analysis was reviewed and confirmed to still be valid as part of the SCRF EA (see Section 3.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Comment #29

Resident: As I continue to read what Terrapure is trying to do I am angry. Terrapure needs to honour the 2013 agreement. I oppose any increase and the site needs to be closed permanently. This a farce that has gone on long enough.

The government needs to end this back and forth now.

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the Undertaking, to increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m³, was established in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report. Terrapure carried out a Business Case Analysis in February 2017 to assess the need for the services it provides to the marketplace. This Business Case Analysis was reviewed and confirmed to still be valid as part of the SCRF EA (see Section 3.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Comment #30

Resident: I am a resident of Stoney Creek and am very concerned about Terrapure not honouring the 2013 Agreement which was approved by the environment ministry.

It would be appreciated if you would look into this matter and take appropriate steps to resolve this situation.

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Comment #31

Resident:

1. Terrapure needs to honour the 2013 agreement.
2. I oppose any increase.
3. I want the site closed ASAP.

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the Undertaking, to increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m³, was established in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report. Terrapure carried out a Business Case Analysis in February 2017 to assess the need for the services it provides to the marketplace. This Business Case Analysis was reviewed and confirmed to still be valid as part of the SCRF EA (see Section 3.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Comment #32

Resident: I am fully opposed to any increase and the site should be closed immediately! Terrapure needs to honour the 2013 agreement.

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the Undertaking, to increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m³, was established in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report. Terrapure carried out a Business Case Analysis in February 2017 to assess the need for the services it provides to the marketplace. This Business Case Analysis was reviewed and confirmed to still be valid as part of the SCRF EA (see Section 3.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Comment #33

Resident: I am fully opposed to any increase and the site should be closed immediately! Terrapure needs to honour the 2013 agreement.

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the Undertaking, to increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m³, was established in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report. Terrapure carried out a Business Case Analysis in February 2017 to assess the need for the services it provides to the marketplace. This Business Case Analysis was reviewed and confirmed to still be valid as part of the SCRF EA (see Section 3.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Comment #34

Resident: Terrapure needs to honour the 2013 Agreement! We oppose any increase-of-capacity or profile to the site! We and many friends and neighbours want this dump site closed and capped ASAP!

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the Undertaking, to increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m³, was established in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report. Terrapure carried out a Business Case Analysis in February 2017 to assess the need for the services it provides to the marketplace. This Business Case Analysis was reviewed and confirmed to still be valid as part of the SCRF EA (see Section 3.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Comment #35

Resident: We would like to go on record, that as long-time local residents living nearby since 1981, we are in total objection to any changes in the current license and object completely to the approval of the EA application submitted. We also wish to point out that the commitments or undertakings from back in 2013 that were made by the landfill operator on the last license change request which was granted; have been reneged upon totally. With the lack of responsibility in meeting those 2013 commitments; this application should be rejected for that reason alone.

We have participated in the open house forums the past 2 years and provided comments in the two letters attached to this letter.

• Letter of Feb 21, 2017 to Gavin Battarino, MOE
• Letter of March 31, 2018 to Brian Dermody, GHD

We received a response from GHD for the March 31 letter of which none of our concerns were recognized or dealt with seriously at all, just the party line to push forward with the EA process as was originally spaced out for Terrapure’s benefit.

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Purpose of the Undertaking

The purpose of the Undertaking, to increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m³, was established in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report. Terrapure carried out a Business Case Analysis in February 2017 to assess the need for the services it provides to the marketplace. This Business Case Analysis was reviewed and confirmed to still be valid as part of the SCRF EA (see Section 3.1 of the SCRF EA Report).

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Comment #36

General Comment 1

As a long time community member living near the Terrapure site, I am strongly opposed to the proposal to further increase the site capacity to 10 million cubic meters (m³). The 1996 site license was originally approved for 10 million tonnes representing between 5 and 6.32 million m³ to more than fill the original quarry. In 2013 the Ministry approved an increase in the site license to a total of 8.32 million m³ of which 2 million m³ was for clean fill. I personally believe that Terrapure will not stop seeking increases to this site until the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) stops them. If this EA is approved, years from now the company will find a motive to seek a further increase.

Proponent's response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

General Comment 2

I found the amount of repetition in the documentation monotonous. The same comments were cut and pasted so many times in each section to the detriment of the overall document. It was almost as if the consultants GHD were being paid by the page.

Proponent's response

As indicated in our response on January 7, 2018, the EA documentation was prepared in accordance with the Ministry’s Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments. There is some repetition throughout the EA document which is required to provide background and contextual information to explain the purpose of the technical work. The executive summary provides a brief summary of the main points of the document.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response. The EA process requires a significant amount of assessment and documentation to ensure that environmental impacts are properly identified and mitigated, consultation has been thorough and robust and that issues are resolved prior to the implementation of the project.

General Comment 3

I seriously question how much community feedback you can expect to the EA based on the unwieldy size of this document and the lack of change that past input has resulted in. The community has provided input to the Draft TOR, the actual TOR, 3 Open Houses and the Draft EA. I have read all of the community input, and with the exception of some form letters that Terrapure asked “friendly” suppliers to write; all of the input from the community has been opposed to a further expansion of the site. I believe there were 78 community responses sent in March 2017 to the MOE stating their opposition to this proposal. In addition, both the Hamilton City Council and the Terrapure Community Liaison Committee have repeatedly stated their opposition to the proposal. In essence, how many times does the community need to say NO in order to be heard, and if the community’s opinion isn’t reflected with changes by the proponent, why keep asking for it?

Proponent's response

As indicated in our response on January 7, 2018, public consultation has been conducted in accordance with the Ministry’s Codes of Practice and has been an important component to this EA.

A summary of all consultation undertaken to obtain feedback during key milestones throughout the EA process and how it was considered is documented in Section 7.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Executive Summary Section

Page ES-1: The document states The Facility has an approved waste disposal capacity of 6,500,000 cubic metres (m³) for solid, non-hazardous residual material and approximately 2,000,000 m³ for industrial fill. In reality, based on Terrapure Annual Reports, the company hasn’t received any industrial fill material in the 5 years since the change to shrink the footprint for the 6.32 million m³ residual material from 59.1 hectares to 41.5 hectares.

The Terrapure ECA approved in 2013 by the MOE now looks like a big mistake. The company took advantage of this decision to add 4.5 meters in height to the site, but never followed through on putting clean industrial fill in the remaining 17.6 hectares set aside for this change as promised. The new EA now seeks to return that 17.6 hectares representing 2 million m³ to residual material and increase the overall site another 2.5 meters or a further 1.68 million m³ for a total increase of 3.68 million m³.

Many in the community would argue that if Terrapure can’t meet its commitment to fill the 17.6 hectares with industrial fill, the 2013 amendment should be voided and the company should simply plow the extra height from the 41.5 hectares into the open area, thus reverting to the initial agreement. I support this position.

There is surprisingly very little in the EA documentation Appendix B—ECA No. A181008 about the rationale for this 2013 ECA change considering how important this decision has turned out to be in relation to the current EA. I find it hard to believe that after proposing the 2013 ECA change, things suddenly changed so much that the company never proceeded at all with receiving Industrial fill. Either it was never really their intent to do so, or they had very poor management at the time of that decision. Neither should be rewarded.

The EA should have included significantly more detail about why the 2013 change was proposed, the stated benefits to the community of that change, why the company did not proceed with accepting industrial fill in the last 5 years and what happens to the promised benefits to the community now with this EA.

While I understand that the 2013 ECA and 2018 EA are separate approval requests, I don’t support ignoring the facts of the 2013 approval. The Ministry’s approval of the 2013 reconfiguration was based on the trade-off of increased height in the 41.5 hectares versus the 5 benefits of the change to the community with the reconfiguration. Had the 2013 ECA simply sought an increased height without any corresponding improvements from the community/Ministry’s viewpoint, there would have been significantly more negative input from the community and likely an outright rejection by the Ministry. So you can’t ignore the loss of these benefits now.

It shouldn’t be this easy for the company to walk away from their part of the 2013 agreement.

Proponent's response

Acceptance of Fill Material: The economic opportunity was established in the Business Case Analysis, included in the Minister-approved Terms of Reference, and reviewed as part SCRF EA (see Appendix E). Based on the current economics and market dynamics for industrial fill, the market demand is significantly less than what was forecasted previously and the financial viability of the SCRF is negatively affected under its current approval in terms of its requirement to bring in industrial fill. The Business Case Analysis identified a continued demand for disposal capacity for this type of waste, and that the demand will significantly exceed the demand for the disposal capacity of industrial fill and soils, particularly as the province moves forward with its updated Excess Soil Management Policy and subsequent regulatory updates to promote reuse of excess soils. These details were presented and established in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Additional Comments regarding the 2013 ECA

As requested by the Ministry, I have been able to locate the attached documents showing on Newalta/Terrapure letterhead the promised benefits to the community for the 2013 ECA agreement. The documents are part of the email chain below from Greg Jones of Newalta/Terrapure to Brad Clark the area councillor at the time and Richard Leitner of the Stoney Creek News. Within the 2 emails below, the 3 attachments and the 1 newspaper article highlighted below are the details of the trade-off that the company was proposing to the Ministry and the community for the landfill reconfiguration in 2013 that ultimately resulted in an ECA approval by the Ministry as per Amendment to Environmental Compliance Approval Number A181008 Notice No. 1 with an issue date of November 22, 2013. I have highlighted in yellow the key wording of the trade-off benefits by company personnel from the 2013 email chain.

www.thespec.com/news-story/3875052-newalta-says-taro-redesign-sidesteps-liner-risks

Prior to the 2013 ECA change, the plan for the landfill called for the construction of two additional phases of liner on approximately 18 hectares of land on the north side along Green Mountain Road to receive residual waste materials. With the change, Newalta proposed a modification to the existing plan that would not require these phases to be built, limiting further expansion of the landfill footprint. Instead, future materials would be placed over the existing footprint that has not yet been capped. This plan would require the overall height of the landfill to increase by about 4.5 meters. Clean industrial fill would then be placed in the remaining 18 hectares of quarry floor adjacent to a new engineered berm where cell construction would no longer occur.

The documents attached that detail the trade-off benefits of the 2013 proposed reconfiguration are in the 3 attachments (2013 ECA1, 2013 ECA2 and 2013 ECA3), the 2 underlying emails and 1 webpage article, all of which are 1–2 pages only in length. I have summarized immediately below the primary benefits to the Ministry and the community of the proposed 2013 change as lifted directly from the pages of these Newalta attachments.

Benefits:

1. Will cut the amount of leachate it sends into the sewer by about 25 percent due to smaller footprint and allow more rain water to run off and be captured as storm water without permeating the ground and requiring management as leachate.
2. Will eliminate the need to have liner construction over an existing groundwater well, which would require the liner to be perforated to accommodate the well.
3. Will eliminate the need to place waste in an area of the quarry that is deeper than other areas and has been filled with clay to bring it up to grade. The risk being that the clay could settle and create an unequal grade that affects the liners performance.
4. With the smaller footprint, the outer limits of the landfill would be up to 275 meters farther away from Green Mountain Road on the north side, thus creating a beneficial additional set-back from planned residential development.
5. The revised design would allow for more flexibility for future, after-life use of the site.

In the words of Greg Jones (Managing Director, Communications and Public Affairs for Terrapure) back in the 2013 email below We believe the revised design is a better all-around option for the site. It would allow more flexibility for future, after-life use of the site; increase the set-back from future residential development along Green Mountain Road; improve the integrity of the liner and leachate collection system from the original design concept; and avoid having to move the site entrance to Mud Street opposite Penny Lane Estates.

There should also be no confusion that the 2013 ECA change resulted in a commitment to put clean Industrial fill in the remaining 18 hectares as proven by the “Existing” diagram of the site in the 2018 EA Description of and Rationale for the Alternative Methods which clearly shows Industrial Fill in that section. 

My contention remains that Terrapure took full advantage of the 2013 ECA change to shrink the footprint for the 6.32 million m³ of residual material from 59.1 hectares to 41.6 hectares by increasing the overall height by 4.5 meters, but has totally reneged on the commitment to fill the remaining 17.6 hectares closest to the new housing development with clean Industrial fill. By doing so, the company has failed to deliver on the benefits presented to the Ministry and the community for allowing the increased height. And should the current EA be approved, that would permanently negate all of the 5 benefits stated above that Newalta/Terrapure used to justify the reconfiguration in 2013 to the Ministry and the community.

I believe that the failure on the part of Terrapure to hold up its end of the 2013 agreement and provide the 5 benefits to the community should be sufficient grounds to reject the EA outright.

Should you require any further confirmation of the promised benefits to the Ministry and the community by Newalta/Terrapure in 2013, I suspect additional information can be found as noted in the Amendment to Environmental Compliance Approval Number A181008 Notice No. 1 with an issue date November 22, 2013 in Schedule A point 63 report entitled “Newalta Stoney Creek Landfill Reconfiguration Supporting Documentation” in your files.

Below are the two 2013 emails from Greg Jones of Newalta/Terrapure where he details the benefits to the community/Ministry of the 2013 ECA proposed change.

From: Jones, Greg [mailto:GJones@newalta.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:36 PM
To: Leitner, Richard
Cc: Alfano, Lorenzo
Subject: FW: Newalta landfill - new project

Richard,

FYI, attached are all the documents we circulated at tonight's NHLLC meeting. As we mentioned, we provided Councillor Clark with advance notice and invited him to contact us to discuss and answer questions/concerns in advance if he wished.

I will get back to you tomorrow with the answer to your question regarding heights above grade for (i) current peak height, (ii) original approved design and (iii) proposed revised design.

Also, Newalta would appreciate the opportunity to respond further to any further comments Councillor Clark made to you directly after the meeting (or any he made during the meeting), as well as to address any specific questions or points of clarification you may have.

We feel strongly that the benefits of not increasing the landfill's current footprint (and the impact on future, after-landfill life of the site), not having to move the site entrance opposite Penny Lane Estates and therefore not creating a constant visual reminder to Penny Lane residents of the landfill (with the entrance and truck traffic in/out), and increasing the set back of the landfilling area by up to 275 metres from the future Empire Homes residential development along Green Mountain Road, outweigh the slight increase in the peak final height of the landfill.

Based on the NHLLC's feedback, we will develop a number of visuals, including photos and artist's renderings to demonstrate what the proposal will look like relative to current elevations and the original plan. As we pointed out tonight, the proposed new peak elevation is still lower than the current temporary peak height of stockpiled construction materials. We hope to be able to clearly show people the differences and allow them to decide how significant they are or are not.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss further, as we would be more than happy to do so.

Regards,

Greg

From: Jones, Greg
To: Clark, Brad
Cc: Rob Ribaric; Alfano, Lorenzo
Subject: Newalta landfill - new project

Brad,

I wanted to give you a heads up about a new project we’re planning to discuss at next Monday’s liaison committee meeting. Below and attached are the details. If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail, please let me know and Lorenzo and I would be pleased to call or come in to see you.

We are beginning to consider final closure plans for the landfill, as the site has less than 10 years of life remaining. In doing so, we have developed a plan that would allow us to reduce the size of the landfill’s footprint from that which was originally approved, by improving the final design. This would require us to slightly increase the peak height of the current landfill area, but not more than some current elevations on the site.

We believe the revised design is a better all-around option for the site. It would allow more flexibility for future, after-life use of the site; increase the set-back from future residential development along Green Mountain Road; improve the integrity of the liner and leachate collection system from the original design concept; and avoid having to move the site entrance to Mud Street opposite Penny Lane Estates.

We are conducting all of the required environmental and engineering analysis and are confident there would be no impact on the landfill’s extensive existing environmental controls. Nor would there be any change to the landfills annual or final waste capacity, airspace volume or anticipated final closure timing of the site by 2023.

In order to implement this design modification, we require a technical amendment to the original approved design. As such, we are required to share details with the City through yourself and Councillor Powers and with the community through the NHLLC. We will also be taking out ads in the Stoney Creek News, delivering project information by direct mail to residents in the usual 1.5 km radius surrounding the site and creating a website with information and the ability to submit questions or comments.

Please see the attached documents for more details. And again, let us know if you would like to discuss further.

Regards,

Greg

Proponent's response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval: The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

As part of the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment, several benefits of the proposed Amendment were identified, related to specific aspects of the SCRF in 2013. The following is an assessment of the impact of the proposed Undertaking on those aspects of the SCRF:

1. As noted in Section 6.1.2.7, leachate generation rates are expected to be generally consistent with flows predicted during the design of the Site. The potential effect of the Undertaking on groundwater, taking into account predicted leachate generation was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no net environmental effects from the Preferred Landfill Footprint on the geologic or hydrogeologic conditions within the Site Study Area (see Section 6.2.1.1)
2. Construction of the liner and leachate collection system over the existing M4 groundwater well will not negatively impact their integrity. As stated in Sections 3.9 and 3.13 of the Facility Characteristics Report (Appendix K), the design of the base liner system and leachate collection system will remain unchanged from the original landfill design, which accounted for construction of the liner over the M4 groundwater extraction well. As a result, the net effects of the geologic and hydrogeological conditions as stated in Section 6.2.1.1 of the SCRF EA Report in the study area remained unchanged.
3. Construction of the liner over the deeper area of the former quarry floor will not negatively impact the integrity of the liner. Construction over this portion of the quarry floor was included in the original Design and Operations Report and will be reflected in the updated Design and Operations Report, which will be prepared as part of the Environmental Compliance Approval application (see Section 9.3). As a result, the net effects of the geologic and hydrogeological conditions as stated in Section 6.2.1.1 of the SCRF EA Report in the study area remained unchanged.
4. As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, minimum 30 m buffers will be maintained as required. As well, impact management measures will be maintained to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour
5. The flexibility of the future, after-life use of the site is not affected by the proposed Undertaking. As discussed in Section 6.6, the final end use of the Site to be determined during post-closure will reflect the City of Hamilton land use planning controls.

Previous concept of moving the site entrance is not contemplated under the current proposed undertaking.

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Page ES-5

I recognize that Terrapure can apply for an EA for whatever they want, BUT the fact that there is a business opportunity for the company doesn’t mean that this location makes sense or in any way infers acceptance by the community. The establishment of a new landfill site should in fact be a reasonable alternative compared to what Terrapure is proposing to the Stoney Creek community.

I believe it is important to remember what the initial 1995 site approval as presented in the documentation Appendix B—ECA No. A181008 page 8 says. Capacity—the maximum volume of waste and cover materials, excluding final cover which may be disposed at the site is 6,320,000 m³. The maximum tonnage of waste and cover materials, excluding final cover, which may be disposed at the site is 10,000,000 tonnes. Years later when the company determined that the tonnes/m³ ratio was closer to 2.0 than the 1.6 this ratio infers, they sought and received MOE approval to drop the tonnes amount in order to maximize their revenue.

If this EA is approved, it would represent 10 million m³ or ~20 million tonnes which is twice the original approval. The EA should have specifically addressed how it possibly makes sense to receive twice the volume of material that the site was initially licensed for.

The quarry floor back in 1995 was 192 meters above sea level (MASL) and the surrounding lands averaged 205 MASL so the quarry required 13 meters of fill. Yet the initial approval had a peak of 214 MASL, considerably higher than the surrounding lands. Then the 2013 EA increased the height to 218.5 MASL and now this EA would see it go up another 2.5 meters to 221 MASL which would be 16 meters or 52 feet above the surrounding lands. The EA should have specifically addressed why building a 5-story mountain of residual waste surrounded by a growing residential community should even be considered.

As pointed out previously in the Online Open House feedback, the evaluation criteria that the company selected for ranking the 6 alternatives did not reflect the 2 largest concerns of the community; the height of the landfill and the earliest possible closure date. Instead, the evaluation criteria was full of items that provided no differentiation between the alternatives (eg. Terrestrial and Aquatic, Archeology and Build Heritage). The EA should have been modified to give commensurate weighting in the evaluation criteria to the height of the landfill and the closure date.

Proponent's response

As previously responded to on January 7, 2019, The purpose of the Undertaking as described in Section 3 of the EA, is to increase the approved capacity for post-diversion solid, nonhazardous, industrial residual material by 3,680,000 m³.

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

As previously responded to on January 7, 2019, the environmental components were selected to reflect the broad definition of the environment under the Environmental Assessment Act, specifically the natural, social, economic, cultural, and built environments. These components are consistent with other EAs undertaken throughout Ontario, and were confirmed in the Minister- Approved Amended Terms of Reference.

In addition, none of the evaluation criteria were weighted as more or less important. The alternatives were compared against one another to determine the advantages and disadvantages to the environment in order to identify preferences among the alternatives.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Page ES-8

The document says the recommended Alternative Landfill Footprint: Reconfiguration and Vertical Expansion was presented to review agencies, Indigenous communities and the public for comments and feedback. Following consideration of all comments received and based on the comparative evaluation and advantages/disadvantages against all other alternatives as highlighted in Section 5.6, the recommended Alternative Landfill Footprint was then confirmed as the Preferred Landfill Footprint.> This is misleading as Terrapure totally ignored the input as evidenced by their selection of Option 5 which had zero positive comments from community members who took the time to respond to the Open House, compared to Option 1 that had 17 positive comments. This wording should have been corrected to reflect that the community comments were not taken into consideration and that in fact the community supported Option 1.

Proponent's response

The confirmation of the recommended Alternative Landfill Footprint as the preferred Alternative took into consideration the comments received at the Open House. The comments received on the Alternative Footprints and how they were considered by Terrapure is included in Table 7.6.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Purpose and Rationale for the Undertaking

Page 3-1: Terrapure lists the benefits of the Undertaking, but once again ignores the negatives in the proposal. The following negatives should have been stated clearly in the EA in order to be representative:

• increased height to 221 MASL or 16 meters (52 feet) above surrounding lands.
• negative perception of an unsightly landfill in one of Upper Stoney Creeks busiest intersections.
• the potential negative impact on 7,000 neighboring homes.
• another 10—15 years of site life beyond the 20 years initially promised to the community.
• another 10—15 years of truck traffic in an area now growing with homes and with a new school coming neither of which existed at the time of the original approval.

Page 3-2: The document says It would not be economically cost effective to buy additional properties and develop a new facility that could accept post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. Simply saying so doesn’t make it true. There should have been a report detailing alternative site availability in the EA showing what sites were considered and reasons why they are not viable.

Proponent's response

As previously responded to on January 7, 2019, an explanation as to why Alternative Method No. 5 was determined to be the recommended preferred alternative, taking into consideration relative advantages and disadvantages, is included in Section 5.

As previously responded to on January 7, 2019 and communicated above, the assessment of the “Alternatives To” the existing SCRF is described in Supporting Document #1 to the Approved Amended ToR and Appendix E of the Environmental Assessment Report.

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Description of the Environment Potentially Affected by the Undertaking

Page 4-93 thru 4-98: The pictures are not truly representative of what the community sees.

Waste can be seen from points in any of the 4 directions, and more clearly during the countless times that the wind has blown down the fence screening. The 42 pictures selected should have been updated to reflect some of the less flattering ones, specifically some pictures from the dog park on First Road West or by Dofasco Park on First Road East where the site already appears like a mountain on the horizon.

Proponent's response

As previously responded to on January 7, 2019 Section 4.2.3.2 describes the existing environment surrounding the SCRF and includes the details for the areas where locations from the SCRF are somewhat visible. The photos included in this section were taken in September 2017 and are satisfactory for the purposes of the Environmental Assessment.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Alternative Methods of Carrying out the Undertaking

As stated above and previously in my Open House comments, the evaluation criteria was poorly constructed as it was filled with criteria that didn’t differentiate between the alternatives and didn’t include those important to the community. This made the entire ranking process and selection of Option 5 a joke. It appears that the company selected evaluation criteria that would allow for their favored option to come out on top.

The company said they wanted feedback from the community on the options; the community provided 17 positive comments pertaining to Option 1, none to Option 5, and the company selected Option 5. The reason for this should have been clearly explained in the EA.

To the community, it appears that Option 5 is simply “greedier” than Option 1 as it adds an additional 1.68 million m³ representing an additional $168 million in revenue.

Page 5-133: Effect on views of the facility should be Green for Option 1, not Yellow as there is no increase in volume.

Page 5-134: Effect on traffic should be Red for all options other than Option 1 as they require the site to stay open longer and hence a longer period of truck traffic.

Page 5-135: Potential to provide service for disposal should be Yellow for Option 1 not Red as it permits an additional 2 million m³ of residual.

These 3 changes should have been made in the EA, and with the addition of criteria for height and closure date the alternatives should have been re-scored as that may have resulted in Option 1 being the Preferred Option.

Proponent's response

As previously responded to on January 7, 2019, the environmental components were selected to reflect the broad definition of the environment under the Environmental Assessment Act, specifically the natural, social, economic, cultural, and built environments. These components are consistent with other EAs undertaken throughout Ontario, and were confirmed in the Minister-Approved Amended Terms of Reference.

Since none of the feedback received on the recommended option changed the results of the comparative evaluation, Option 5 was confirmed as preferred (see Section 5).

As described in Section 5 of the Environmental Assessment Report,

Option 5 was recommended as it represents:

• A technically feasible design that provides for the additional capacity being sought through the EA. This will allow Terrapure to continue to support the growing local economy by providing disposal capacity for industrial residual material generated within Hamilton and the GTA.
• A lower height increase compared to Alternative Method Nos. 3 and 6, which can be screened through such measures as constructed berms, tree plantings, fencing, etc.
• A low potential for adverse effects to the natural environment which would be further minimized through the use of standard impact management measures.
• Maintains the existing stormwater management ponds.
• A low potential for adverse effects to area residents which would be further minimized through the use of standard impact management measures.

Maximizes the economic benefits to the City of Hamilton, Upper Stoney Creek, and local industry.

As previously responded to on January 7, 2019, on June 19, 2018, and on May 14, 2018, the ranking for the Effect on views of the facility was based on visual impact and the ability for it to be mitigated, rather than height in and of itself, as this better represents the impact that residents will experience. Option 1 resulted in a yellow circle as opposed to green, because even though there is no height increase from the existing approved contours, there would be a change from what is currently visible.

Since the number of trucks per day allowed to the Site will not change with any of the options, there is no increased potential for collisions or increases to level of service at any of the intersections.

Therefore, none of the Options present effects to Traffic (see Section 5).

Finally, the criteria potential to provide service for disposal is related to the ability for Terrapure to provide up to 3,680,000 m³ of additional disposal capacity for post diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material that was outlined in the Approved Amended Terms of Reference. The differences in the rankings reflect that the different Options provide different amounts of disposal capacity. Options 3, 5 and 6 would all result in the greatest disposal capacity—and the ability to meet the additional capacity outlined in the Approved Amended Terms of Reference—while Option 1 and 2 would result in the least capacity—and would not be able to meet the additional capacity outlined in the Approved Amended Terms of Reference.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Terrapure has amended the EA to include a commitment to prepare a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework describing proposed driver training and awareness strategies, in consultation with the City of Hamilton; and to maintain the Framework during construction and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to require the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization; as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized.

Detailed Impact Assessment of the Undertaking

Page 6-1: the document says the Recommended Landfill Footprint (Alternative Landfill Footprint No. 5—Reconfiguration and Vertical Expansion) was confirmed as the ‘Preferred’ Landfill Footprint (also referred to as the Preferred Method) taking into consideration comments received from agencies, Indigenous communities, and the public. As addressed above, this is not true and should have been removed from the document as community input was ignored.

On Page 6-59 of the Draft EA, the document states The project has the potential to affect up to ~7,000 properties due to disruption of their use and enjoyment of property resulting from nuisance effects. That is a pretty big negative hidden deep in the thousands of pages of this document. I can’t find it in the final version EA, but the proponent needs to detail this impact.

Proponent's response

As noted above, the confirmation of the recommended Alternative Landfill Footprint as the preferred Alternative took into consideration the comments received at the Open House. The comments received on the Alternative Footprints and how they were considered by Terrapure is included in Table 7.6.

As previously responded to in on January 7, 2019, the potential cumulative effect of disruption to use and enjoyment of private property identified will be mitigated through the impact management measures described in Table 6.26. The significance assessment for the residual adverse effects, taking into account magnitude, extent, duration, frequency, and performance, is described in Table 6.26. The significance of this effect was determined to be minor or not significant.

For additional context, the number of properties within the Local Study Area was identified for the purposes of the cumulative effects analysis, which considers the cumulative effects of other projects and activities at the Site and within the Local Study Area.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Public and Agency Consultation

Page 7-70: the document still has the old incorrect answer to Open House #3 where Terrapure incorrectly stated We have selected a preferred option with the lowest height of all options. Terrapure has subsequently acknowledged this error, and that correction should have been included in this document. Terrapure promised to fix this in the final version EA, but did not.

Proponent's response

This statement was corrected in the Public Open House Summary Report (Volume 3, Appendix H), however it was erroneously not corrected in Table 7.6. The sentence should read: The preferred option has a lower height increase compared to other options with low environmental impacts.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

Summary

I believe there are many strong reasons for the Ministry to reject the Terrapure EA, lots of which are in the detailed comments from the City of Hamilton and other concerned citizens. For me personally, the top reasons are as listed below:

1. The fact that they are proposing filling a 5 million m³ quarry hole with a 10 million m³ “mountain” in an area that has grown far more residential since the initial site license was approved. We don’t want to stare at a “mountain” of residual waste for the rest of our lives in Stoney Creek.
2. The fact that the proponent has repeatedly manipulated the numbers to already extend the life of the site. These include dropping the 10 million tonnes and corresponding 5 million m³ site capacity from the initial license in favour of 6.32 million m³; changing the historical tonnes to m³ conversion from 1.9 to 2.0; getting approval for 2 million m³ clean industrial fill in 2013 and then never putting a single truckload of this material into the site; getting approval last year for 180,500 m³ of “pre-existing waste” that has now extended the residual waste total from 6.32 million m³ to 6.5 million m³, and the questionable promise to remove from the site 110,000 m³ of road/ramp aggregate in order to allow for additional residual receipts in that amount.
3. The fact that Terrapure has failed to address community concerns in their responses, or has made incorrect statements or misleading answers to these community concerns as evidenced by my detailed comments above.
4. The fact that Terrapure is proposing to “walk away” from the written commitments it made in the 2013 ECA without even mentioning what those commitments were in this EA. The company reached an agreement with the MOE in 2013 to add 4.5 meters in height to 41.6 hectares of the site in return for committing to put clean industrial fill in the remaining 17.1 hectares closest to the new housing community. The company has fully taken advantage of the change to add the 4.5 meters in height to the 41.6 hectares, but has totally reneged on their commitment to put clean industrial fill in the remaining hectares.
5. The citizens of Stoney Creek are at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to resources to fight this EA. The Stoney Creek site is a goldmine for Terrapure. At $50/tonne for residual material and 2 tonnes per m³, their proposal for an additional 3.68 million m³ represents the potential for an additional $368 million in revenue. Terrapure has been paying a team of consultants for over 2 years to lead the EA who have done their best to overwhelm us with verbiage, provide generic answers to our specific concerns and manipulate the information in a way favorable to the company. The opposition to the EA is largely the City of Hamilton planning group and a number of concerned citizens who have the time to invest.

The Ministry approved the 2013 ECA and there is little we can do about that now.

The Ministry should have ensured that the 2013 ECA amendment wording was clear that the proponent was required to fill the remaining 17.6 hectares with clean industrial fill as this was why the approval was given for the increased height on the 41.6 hectares. There is little we can do about that now.

But the proof in the emails above and the attachments provided is very clear; Newalta/Terrapure committed to providing the 5 benefits to the community in return for the increased height in 41.6 hectares.

If the Ministry approves this EA, that eliminates the benefits of the 2013 ECA agreement.

So there is something that the Ministry can now do and that is reject this EA based on the reasons above.

Proponent's response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #37

Resident: My wife and I are homeowners in the Heritage Green neighbourhood of Upper Stoney Creek not far from the Terrapure Landfill Site. We have lived in our home since 1987 and frequently drive past the Terrapure site.

We are strongly opposed to the current application of Terrapure to extend the life of the site and increase the capacity of the site. I have attached my survey comments which were sent to Terrapure and the (unsatisfactory) responses received in reply from Terrapure.

Approving the Terrapure application would be wrong for many reasons. The proposed changes totally disregard the basis upon which the Ministry agreed to license changes in 2013; the site is in a residential neighbourhood; the site is poorly maintained and is an eyesore at a key intersection of Upper Stoney Creek (have you ever seen the Upper Ottawa closed dump site in Hamilton?); much of the waste material going into the site is not from the Hamilton community; and the proposed height increase will eliminate any future use of the site and create a visual reminder and permanent monument to the landfill.

The Terrapure landfill site is more than full and Terrapure has exhausted its mandate and the site must be closed and remediated to the extent possible.

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Land Use and Residential Development

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on existing and approved/planned uses in the vicinity of the Site was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no changes to existing or future land uses (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.4.1 of the SCRF EA Report). As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, the following existing impact management measures utilized at the SCRF will continue to be implemented with the proposed Undertaking:

• Maintain minimum 30 m buffers for nuisance reduction.
• Landfill operations measures to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour.
• Maintain landfill operation best management practices and impact management measures, such as the stormwater management, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures to ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated.

Although there are already visual screening elements at the SCRF, the Site design will include additional screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which will mitigate visual impact and noise (Section 6.2.2.1).

Waste Acceptance & Receipt

Nearly 50% of the material received annually at the SCRF come from customers in the City of Hamilton (see Figure 1.2: Percentage Breakdown of Residual Material Received by Location in Business Case Analysis, Volume 2 Appendix E).

Capacity & Closure Planning

As documented in the 2017 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) is within its the approved waste capacity and continues to operate within its current ECA No. A181008.

The final end use of the Site during post-closure will reflect the City of Hamilton land use planning controls, which currently intends for the Site to become open space and/or recreational uses (Section 6.6).

MECP status

Terrapure has identified how they would work to continue to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in the commitments. The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

Comment #38

Resident: The purpose of this e-mail is let you know that I oppose the expansion of the Terrapure industrial dump site located in Stoney Creek, ON.

It is difficult to understand why a dump site has been allowed to continue to operate in an area with residential housing surrounding it within the City of Hamilton municipal boundaries, let alone even be considered for expansion. There is significant new residential house building happening within close proximity of the site at this time and the City of Hamilton’s Elfrida residential growth plan stipulates there will be an additional 80,000 people residing in the upper Stoney Creek area of the City of Hamilton over the next couple of decades.

The site is located within the City of Hamilton boundaries. It is difficult to understand why government officials would think it is appropriate to operate a quarry-style waste disposal site within the boundaries of any major city in Canada and so close to residential communities. As a matter of fact, I propose the dump site be capped and permanently closed by no later than December 31, 2020, for environmental, health, and safety reasons.

I attended several of the open houses for this proposal and I found some the information presented by the supposed independent third party (who were being paid by Terrapure) to be misleading, inaccurate, or not transparent. For example, they were not able to explain to me the specifics about how they determined the $18 million economic benefit to Hamilton. When I asked several of the people participating in the open house would they want this type of dump located in their neighbourhood, nobody would respond to my question. When I responded to their silence by stating your unwillingness to respond to my question would imply your answer is no, there was once again silence on their part. It was very obvious to me their position is not in my backyard. This is exactly the position of most, if not all, of the residents living with 5 kilometers of the site. NOT IN OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD!

I have lived in the area close to the site for just over 2 ½ years, and here are some of my observations regarding activities associated with site:

• A rapid deterioration of the asphalt surfaces on Mud St., Upper Centennial Pkwy, Red Hill Pkwy, and the Linc. I would assume this can be partially attributed to heavy truck traffic coming and going to and from the site.
• On occasion a pungent smell in the air.
• Reckless and careless driving by truck traffic along Mud St. Often, going through red lights at a speed over the speed limit.
• Trucks speeding along Mud St. and down the Red Hill Pkwy northbound toward the QEW.
• Trucks travelling along Mud St. that do not appear to be road worthy.
• Plumes of smoky emissions coming from trucks.
• Lack of mud flaps behind the rear tires of some trucks.
• Extremely slow-moving trucks, barely climbing the hill up the Red Hill Parkway from the QEW to the Mud St. exit, creating driver frustration and acts of road rage by other drivers.
• Visibility of dump materials when driving westbound on Mud St. at First Road West
• Unsightly tattered and wind blown tarps on perimeter fencing
• A lack of government on-site oversight on types and composition of materials being disposed of at the site, or inspection of the sites where the materials are coming from. Clearly there has been a shift away from the site mainly being used by Hamilton-based users to GTA-based users. Does the provincial government know what materials are going into the dump site on a daily basis and the user sites the materials are coming from?

If the provincial government agrees to the expansion I would expect the Government of Ontario (GOO) to do (as a minimum standard) the following:

• Have an employee(s) of the GOO on site daily to inspect waste loads entering the dump site for compliance.
• Have an employee(s) of the GOO on site to inspect trucks daily for meeting emission standards, meeting safety standards, as well as, inspecting truck drivers logs for compliance.
• Have the City of Hamilton police department monitor truck traffic more closely along Mud St., Upper Centennial Pkwy, Red Hill Pkwy, and the Linc for speeding, dangerous or careless driving, etc. It is important to note that all four of the above thoroughfares are “city streets”, not highways.
• Impose a surtax (based on weight of the load and truck, and distance travelled) on all loads entering the site. These funds would be used for road repairs and resurfacing of roads noted above versus taxpayers footing the bills for these repairs.
• Make it mandatory of the users of the site to develop and submit 1 year, 3 year, 5 year, and 10 year plans for source waste reduction through the recycling and reuse of materials currently going to the site. This would also require that each of these users develop and submit an update on accomplishments and adherence to the plan once per year.
• Enact a minimum posted speed of 40 kilometers per hour for the stretch of Red Hill Pkwy coming from the QEW to Mud St., in other words, southbound traffic going up the escarpment.
• Conduct a referendum for homeowners living within 5 kilometers of the dump site on whether or not the site should remain open.

Proponent’s response

Land Use and Residential Development

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on existing and approved/planned uses in the vicinity of the Site was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no changes to existing or future land uses (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.4.1 of the SCRF EA Report). As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, the following existing impact management measures utilized at the SCRF will continue to be implemented with the proposed Undertaking:

• Maintain minimum 30 m buffers for nuisance reduction.
• Landfill operations measures to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour.
• Maintain landfill operation best management practices and impact management measures, such as the stormwater management, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures to ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated.

Although there are already visual screening elements at the SCRF, the Site design will include additional screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which will mitigate visual impact and noise (Section 6.2.2.1).

Impacts to Surrounding Community and Environment

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on the surrounding community and the environment were assessed and are documented in Section 6 of the EA. As noted in Section 6.8, the proposed Undertaking, with specific impact management measures and monitoring programs in place, will have low net effects on all environmental components and will have a positive economic effect on the community.

Human Health

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on human health were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that with the implementation of the proposed landfill design and mitigation measures to manage leachate, groundwater, surface water and air quality, no net effect to human health are anticipated (Section 6.2.3.2).

As noted in Table 7.7 of the Final EA Report, the Hamilton Public Health Services reviewed the Draft EA Report, including the Human Health Impact Assessment Report and staff had no comments.

In addition, the Hamilton Public Health has reviewed all of the extensive health and environmental monitoring data Terrapure has accumulated over 20 years in existence and confirmed there is nothing that poses a risk to the community.

Finally, Terrapure has committed to continue to undertake the annual Community Health Assessment Review as part of the Annual Monitoring Report for the SCRF (Section 8.3).

Economic Benefits

The reference of the $18 million in GDP from the member of the public is associated with current operations at the SCRF. This information was determined by RIAS consulting and is based on historical fill rate. It was determined that current SCRF generates $28.7 million in economic activity in Hamilton, adding $17.9 million in GDP and 51 jobs (see Appendix A of Vol 2 Appendix E—Business Case Analysis).

Traffic

Some of the existing traffic controls of the SCRF include:

• When trucks exit the SCRF, they pass through a wheel wash to reduce the amount of dust and dirt that is tracked off-site onto local roads.
• A water truck and sweeper are also used to control dust.

In addition, the potential effect on traffic was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the proposed Undertaking will have no effect on traffic since the Undertaking will not change the volume of SCRF truck traffic from the current volumes (Section 6.2.3.1).

Government Oversight

In order to operate, Terrapure must follow the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) by having an approved EA and an approved ECA from the MECP. In addition, Terrapure must meet:

• 23 terms and conditions set out in the SCRF’s approval under the EA Act
• 115 specific conditions set out in ECA No. A181008

Every year Terrapure provides an annual report to the MECP, available to the public, documenting how the SCRF has complied with its ECA and EA Act conditions in the previous year.

In addition to the Annual Monitoring Report provided to the MECP, detailed records of the residual materials accepted at the Site each year are documented in the Annual Monitoring Reports. Table 6.22 provides a summary of the residual materials accepted at the Site and their approximate fraction of the overall total based on records from 1997 to 2017.

To ensure only permitted materials are accepted at the SCRF, Terrapure uses a Waste Profile system. Each customer delivering materials are require to have a Waste Profile which includes details such as what materials they are disposing of and why they can’t recover or divert the material themselves.

Terrapure also screens, records and verified the materials match the customer’s approved Waste Profile. If a load contains unacceptable materials, it is rejected.

In addition, in response from community feedback, Terrapure created a video on the “Waste Acceptance Process” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyPV_LGF-Y4) as a tool to increase awareness and provide a better understanding of the process at the SCRF.

Odour Management and Monitoring

It is a priority for Terrapure to operate in a way that is respectful and considerate of our neighbours. Anyone who experiences an odour is asked to contact Terrapure’s 24/7 Community Response Line (905-561-0305), which the company promotes actively to the neighbouring community. Currently, Terrapure receives a limited number of odour calls, all of which are investigated and documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report, as well as being reported on to the complainant.

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on odour was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the Site is unlikely to contribute to significant odour issues in the area since the Site is not permitted to receive putrescible waste (i.e., organic material that can break down and cause odours) and existing best management practices will continue (Sections 5.4.1.1.1.4, 6.2.1.4). As well, the Site will continue to document odour complaints and investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to the Site operations (Section 6.2.1.4).

Visual Impacts

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls (Section 6.2.2.1).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

The ministry is satisfied with the detailed impact assessment completed by the proponent.

The ministry is satisfied with the EA's evaluation of potential effects on human health.

Terrapure has amended the EA to include a commitment to prepare a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework describing proposed driver training and awareness strategies, in consultation with the City of Hamilton; and to maintain the Framework during construction and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to require the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization; as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized.

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that would require the preparation of an odour management and mitigation plan to ensure ongoing odour best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed.

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Comment #39

Resident: If the provincial government agrees to the expansion I would expect the Government of Ontario (GOO) to do (as a minimum standard) the following:

It will be a standard and expectation of the Government of Ontario to install environmental and toxicology monitoring and evaluation equipment for air, soil, ground water, and surface water contamination within the dump site and at various locations outside of the dump site up to 3 kilometres to the south of the dump site and up to 5 kilometres to the north, east, and west of the dump site.

Core samples of soil, and samples of ground and surface water should be gathered at various locations within and outside of the dump site daily and tested daily by an employee of the Government of Ontario.

Samples from the leachate pool should be tested daily, and the air quality above and around the leachate pool, up to 2 kms from the pool in all directions, should also be tested daily.

It will be a standard and expectation of the Government of Ontario to have one of its employees develop and maintain a log of the readings from this equipment on an ongoing basis daily.

It will be a standard and expectation of the Government of Ontario to develop, maintain and update daily a dedicated website displaying the readings. All of the readings on this website should be accessible to residents.

The cost of equipment and set up, the website, and any costs associated with the Government of Ontario employee should be fully funded by Terrapure and the dump site users via the collection of environmental improvement fees from all parties. In other words, there should be no cost to taxpayers for the funding of any of the above.

The Government of Ontario should establish and set minimum and maximum acceptable standards and expectations for all of the above, and any and all infractions should bear significant and stiff posted financial penalties for non-compliance.

Proponent’s response

Existing and Future Operations

Under the current ECA No. A181008, the SCRF is required to meet stringent environmental protections and provides the MECP with an Annual Monitoring Report outlining how it is meeting these requirements.

In addition, to ensure Terrapure operates in a way that is respectful and considerate of our neighbours, Terrapure has a 24/7 Community Response Line (905-561-0305), which the company promotes actively. All calls are investigated and documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report, as well as communicated back to the complainant.

If approved, Terrapure would continue to employ a variety of monitoring and reporting to the MECP as part of the revised ECA.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The ministry is recommending a condition to ensure that the local community liaison committee continues through construction and operation of the landfill.

Comment #40

Resident: I strongly vote against the proposed increase of industrial waste at the SCRF, located at 65 Mountain Rd. W, Stoney Creek, ON.

1. This proposal will bring in industrial waste from GTA and Hamilton. There will be more truck traffic on an already overloaded highway system, and an already busy Centennial Parkway.
2. The run-off from the dump will pollute the already compromised water falls in the escarpment area.
3. I was told that some of the run-off water will be guided into our storm/sanitary sewers. Our water purification system is even now, with heavy storms, compromised. What a mess it will be with an additional load from the GTA and Hamilton. Will we be drinking polluted water from the lake in the future. I hope you will not approve this disaster.

Proponent’s response

Traffic

The potential effect on traffic was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the proposed Undertaking will have no effect on traffic since the Undertaking will not change the volume of SCRF truck traffic from the current volumes (Section 6.2.3.1).

Stormwater Management

As described in Section 6.2.1.10 Stormwater Management, the site must be designed to protect surface water (Ontario Regulation 232/98). As such the stormwater management pond and perimeter ditches will be able to treat and control runoff from the Site to the same level as current approved design and results in low net environmental effects.

In addition, the pond design will include emergency shut-off valves so that stormwater will not be released into the storm sewer system below First Road West, if water quality testing determines that the water is not suitable for discharge.

MECP status

Terrapure has amended the EA to include a commitment to prepare a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework describing proposed driver training and awareness strategies, in consultation with the City of Hamilton; and to maintain the Framework during construction and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to require the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization; as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized.

The ministry is satisfied with this commitment.

Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Comment #41

Resident: I am a resident of Upper Stoney Creek where I live on Mellenby street with my husband and 3 young children. I am writing today to voice my concern that there is potential for Terrapure to remain open with approval to increase it's capacity. My house is 2 stories and already I can clearly see the dump from my 3 year old son's window as well as my own. I can only imagine when the increase in capacity actually takes effect what our view will become.

We bought our home in 2012 with the promise that this unsightly, smelly dump would be closed and now I feel betrayed that once again there is a proposal keep the dump open longer with an increase to its size. We are looking to move in the near future, as we are quickly outgrowing our house, and I fear if the dump is kept open it will greatly affect the value of our home when we choose to sell.

Please do not approve Terrapure's request; think of the people who live in this rapidly growing neighbourhood, the previously broken promises and the most important the environment.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about my neighbourhood or if you want to see pictures from my house overlooking the dump.

Proponent’s response

Visual Impact

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls (Section 6.2.2.1).

Odour Management and Monitoring

It is a priority for Terrapure to operate in a way that is respectful and considerate of our neighbours. Anyone who experiences an odour is asked to contact Terrapure’s 24/7 Community Response Line (905-561-0305), which the company promotes actively to the neighbouring community. Currently, Terrapure receives a limited number of odour calls, all of which are investigated and documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report, as well as being reported on to the complainant.

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on odour was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the Site is unlikely to contribute to significant odour issues in the area since the Site is not permitted to receive putrescible waste (i.e., organic material that can break down and cause odours) and existing best management practices will continue (Sections 5.4.1.1.1.4 and 6.2.1.4). As well, the Site will continue to document odour complaints and investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to the Site operations (Section 6.2.1.4).

Closure Planning

Terrapure has never previously communicated that the SCRF would close by a certain defined date.

As noted in Section 6.2.6, under the EA, the Site could reach capacity in as little as 10 years assuming the maximum allowable fill rate, or approximately 13 years using the average fill rate. Allowing for up to an additional 2 years to achieve Site closure, it is anticipated that the operating stage of the SCRF would be between approximately 10-15 years.

It should be noted that these values represent estimates based on currently available information and may change depending on the operating conditions encountered at the Site.

Property Value

The potential effect of the proposed Undertaking on property values was assessed as part of the SCRF EA, and it was determined that since there is no conclusive data to suggest that the SCRF has had a negative impact on property values to date, the proposed Undertaking is unlikely to have any significant influence on current value assessment and property assessment (Section 6.2.4.1).

MECP status

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that would require the preparation of an odour management and mitigation plan to ensure ongoing odour best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

Comment #42

Resident: I am writing to share my concern and disgust in hearing that there is potential for the Mud St. dump site to stay open, as well as a plan to approve an increase in the allowed volume substantially.

I live on Mellenby St in Upper Stoney Creek with my wife and three small children. When we first moved in we could see the dump but were glad to hear it was closing. Now a few years later we continue to see the mountain rising higher creating more of an eyesore.

I am not sure how Terrapure has been approved to continue to remain open. It continues to be a fixture of our view from our home that is the source of the constant layer of dust on our property.

The unsightly mass is lowering the surrounding property values, creating a health risk for the many young families, including my own, and most important of all is having a detrimental effect on the surrounding environment.

I would like to see the broken promises and backroom deals come to an end and see this dump closed before it is too late.

Feel free to contact me via email or by phone and I will be more than happy to share my concern about the dump remaining open even one day longer.

Proponent’s response

Closure Planning

Terrapure has never previously communicated that the SCRF would close by a certain defined date.

As noted in Section 6.2.6, under the EA, the Site could reach capacity in as little as 10 years assuming the maximum allowable fill rate, or approximately 13 years using the average fill rate. Allowing for up to an additional 2 years to achieve Site closure, it is anticipated that the operating stage of the SCRF would be between approximately 10-15 years.

It should be noted that these values represent estimates based on currently available information and may change depending on the operating conditions encountered at the Site.

Visual Impacts

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls (Section 6.2.2.1).

Property Value

The potential effect of the proposed Undertaking on property values was assessed as part of the SCRF EA, and it was determined that since there is no conclusive data to suggest that the SCRF has had a negative impact on property values to date, the proposed Undertaking is unlikely to have any significant influence on current value assessment and property assessment (Section 6.2.4.1).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Comment #43

Resident: I am writing in regard to the above facility. We have lived in this area for 30 years, and seen the population increase rapidly, new schools, roads, Medical Centres, all of which we were more than happy to adjust to. What we are seeing now at the Terrapure site is an affront to the neighborhood.

As we leave our homes, we are confronted by ugly piles of waste every day, huge trucks can be seen entering the facility, and now the piles are so huge we can actually see these trucks on the tops of the said piles.

We all know the saying, NIMBY, but the residents in Upper Stoney Creek, have had more than their fair share of accepting garbage in many different forms, how can these huge trucks be monitored from top to bottom, there is a definite odor wafting through our neighborhood during the Summer months and as Terrapure expands its dumping, this will certainly increase the problem.

We are all our inundated daily with information informing us how to protect our environment, what to use, what not to use, what is recyclable, etc., and we all try our utmost to do our part, it all seems rather senseless when we observe this dump, not winding down operations as promised, but planning expansions to the site.

The expansion plan raises the dump's height by 2.5 metres, reopens a capped section and places waste where the original plan was for clean fill.

We appreciate your time and effort in investigating the situation we have in our area, and hopefully agree with us, that this site should be closed as promised.

Proponent’s response

Height, Site Footprint and Visual Impact

As described in Section 6.1.1., the proposed capacity increase will extend the peak height of the SCRF by approximately 2.5 m. The horizontal limits will extend further toward the north, back to the original approved footprint of the SCRF. The area currently approved to accept industrial fill will be replaced with a base liner system to accept residual material.

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls.

Traffic

The potential effect on traffic was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the proposed Undertaking will have no effect on traffic since the Undertaking will not change the volume of SCRF truck traffic from the current volumes (Section 6.2.3.1).

Odour Management and Monitoring

It is a priority for Terrapure to operate in a way that is respectful and considerate of our neighbours. Anyone who experiences an odour is asked to contact Terrapure’s 24/7 Community Response Line (905-561-0305), which the company promotes actively to the neighbouring community. Currently, Terrapure receives a limited number of odour calls, all of which are investigated and documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report, as well as being reported on to the complainant.

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on odour was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the Site is unlikely to contribute to significant odour issues in the area since the Site is not permitted to receive putrescible waste (i.e., organic material that can break down and cause odours) and existing best management practices will continue (Sections 5.4.1.1.1.4, 6.2.1.4). As well, the Site will continue to document odour complaints and investigate complaints to attempt to identify those which are related to the Site operations (Section 6.2.1.4).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Terrapure has amended the EA to include a commitment to prepare a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework describing proposed driver training and awareness strategies, in consultation with the City of Hamilton; and to maintain the Framework during construction and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to require the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization; as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized.

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that would require the preparation of an odour management and mitigation plan to ensure ongoing odour best management practices at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility continue to be followed.

Comment #44

Resident: 1996 when this controversial industrial dump was opened Taro agreed to build a leachate treatment plant on the site using the reverse osmosis method. The plant was never built, instead Taro convinced the city of Hamilton to allow them to pump millions of litres of untreated toxic leachate onto the city sewer system whose sewage treatment plant cannot handle hazardous industrial liquid waste, therefore the leachate ends up in Lake Ontario, the source of drinking water for millions of people. We cannot allow Taro trucking another 3,680,000 cubic meters of hazardous industrial waste, solid and liquid, generated mostly from. USA. Which will produce millions litres of toxic leachate, increasing the contamination of Lake Ontario.

The expansion of this dump must be stopped, and closed as soon as possible. For the sake of our children and future generations of Ontarians, please protect our fragile environment.

Proponent’s response

Leachate Management

As described in Section 6.1.2.7, leachate is currently discharged to a gravity main that flows to the equalization pond in the adjacent closed west Site before being discharged to a sanitary sewer under Mistywood Drive. The potential effect of the proposed Undertaking on leachate management was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that no changes would be required to the existing leachate collection system (Section 6.2.6). Since, as stated in Section 6.2.6, the SCRF currently and will continue to accept only solid, non-hazardous residual material and does not accept liquid or hazardous waste.

Since the original 1996 Certificate of Approval (now Environmental Compliance Approval), the SCRF has always discharged to the City of Hamilton sanitary sewer. The details for Leachate Management are included under Condition 39 of the ECA. In addition, ECA Conditions 26 and 27 outline the types of waste accepted at the SCRF. No liquid industrial wastes, hazardous wastes, as defined under Regulation 347, or putrescible waste shall be disposed of on Site.

Waste Acceptance & Receipt

Terrapure is only permitted to receive non-hazardous industrial residual material generated in Ontario. Nearly 50% of the material received annually at the SCRF come from customers in the City of Hamilton (see Figure 1.2: Percentage Breakdown of Residual Material Received by Location in Business Case Analysis, Volume 2 Appendix E).

Impacts to Surrounding Community and Environment

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on the surrounding community and the environment were assessed and are documented in Section 6 of the EA. As noted in Section 6.8, the proposed Undertaking, with specific impact management measures and monitoring programs in place, will have low net effects on all environmental components and will have a positive economic effect on the community.

MECP status

Terrapure revised their EA commitments table and committed to consult with the City of Hamilton on the groundwater monitoring program as part of future annual monitoring. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The ministry is satisfied with the detailed impact assessment completed by the proponent.

Comment #45

Resident: I am writing to provide my comments regarding Terrapure’s Environmental Assessment for increasing the capacity for materials at the Stoney Creek site.

I understand that there is new ownership and they are stating they have different priorities. However, this does not negate the fact that there were agreements and expectations in place upon the approval of the Taro site. Now Terrapure wants to change them. I do not want to see another 2.5 metres of waste on the horizon. It is a terrible eyesore to our community already. Adding this extra height will only make it more unbearable. With Terrapure’s proposal, the distance between this dump site will not even be in line with what the city and residents were promised by Newalta during the 2013 site changes. And what happened to clean fill that was promised? How can we expect Terrapure to keep promises when the government has not made sure that the previous company have kept theirs?

Terrapure feels that they have made their case from an “environmental and technical perspective” but what is lacking is true community involvement. Homeowners across the dump were provided with the information that the site would close. Sure Terrapure had open houses but they were very controlled. There was never an written option that the dump closes as planned. If residents responded to the options that Terrapure provided then it makes it looks like the community was okay with updates to the site. This is how data is skewed. Have you analyzed how they worked to get the responses that they wanted?

How can things change just because another company wants to come in and make money? What happened to the rights of the citizens?

It is everyone’s responsibility to look after our environment. Now the estimated life-span of this waste will be longer than what was originally told to the government and to the citizens of Stoney Creek.

It is the provincial governments responsibility to look beyond big business and look at the history—what the people of Stoney Creek have had been promised in past deals. Look at what our community has already had to accept because of previous backroom deals.

We had this initial deal forced on us.

I feel it is unjust that the government does this again to my community. Please, say, No, to Terrapure’s proposal and close the site as we were promised!

Proponent’s response

2013 Environmental Compliance Approval

The current SCRF EA is a separate approvals process from the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment approved in 2013. As such, the current Environmental Assessment assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Undertaking, as is required by the MECP's Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario.

Visual Impact

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls (Section 6.2.2.1).

Impacts to Surrounding Community and Environment

The potential impacts of the proposed Undertaking on the surrounding community and the environment were assessed and are documented in Section 6 of the EA. As noted in Section 6.8, the proposed Undertaking, with specific impact management measures and monitoring programs in place, will have low net effects on all environmental components and will have a positive economic effect on the community.

Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation has been an important component of this EA. A wide variety of consultation activities were carried out throughout the preparation of the EA. The consultation activities provided multiple opportunities and a wide-range of methods for review agencies, Indigenous communities, and public stakeholders to be involved and provide comments for consideration.

More specifically, in addition to the open house held during the Terms of References, Terrapure held three open houses at key milestones of this EA to inform the public and receive comments/ feedback. All public comments received and how Terrapure considered them are included in Table 7.6 and Table 7.9 of the EA.

Closure Planning

Terrapure has never previously communicated that the SCRF would close by a certain defined date.

As noted in Section 6.2.6 of the EA Report, the Site could reach capacity in as little as 10 years assuming the maximum allowable fill rate, or approximately 13 years using the average fill rate. Allowing for up to an additional 2 years to achieve Site closure, it is anticipated that the operating stage of the SCRF would be between approximately 10-15 years.

It should be noted that these values represent estimates based on currently available information and may change depending on the operating conditions encountered at the Site.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent met the requirements of the ToR and the objectives for the study as stated in the EA.

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The ministry is satisfied with the detailed impact assessment completed by the proponent.

The ministry is satisfied that proper mitigation measures have been included to address the outstanding public concerns.

The ministry is recommending a condition to ensure that the local community liaison committee continues through construction and operation of the landfill.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

Comment #46

Business: I am writing to express ArcelorMittal Dofasco's support for an Environmental Assessment requested by Terrapure Environmental in order to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility.

As you may already know, ArcelorMittal Dofasco is Hamilton's largest private sector employer and plays a key role in North America's advanced manufacturing supply chain working with the top automotive, energy, packaging and construction brands to develop lighter, stronger and more sustainable steel products.

We are committed to a circular approach with our steelmaking operation, in which as little as possible is wasted and as much as possible reused. Our steelmaking process produces a number of residues that are reused, recycled, stored for future use. At the same time, there are also some industrial non-hazardous residual materials which must be disposed of as there are no commercial and technical solutions to reuse them.

While we continue to explore opportunities to recycle these materials, we continue to require the removal and landfill of these industrial non-hazardous materials to a facility within close proximity to our operations. Terrapure has provided these services to ArcelorMittal Dofasco for many years.

We support the Environmental Assessment request by Terrapure Environmental to add capacity to its Stoney Creek Regional Facility and encourage the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to approve this application.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #47

Business: I am writing you today on behalf of the Heritage Green Community Trust to communicate our support for the proposed capacity increase being sought by Terrapure Environmental as part of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment (SCRF EA).

As demonstrated in the EA Report, the capacity increase will have a highly positive economic impact on the local community. Specifically, if approved, it would allow Terrapure to continue to play a vital role in supporting the local community within a 3-kilometre radius of the site by funding the Heritage Green Community Trust.

The Trust, governed by a Board of Trustees, provides grants to not-for-profit community, educational or charitable organizations in Upper Stoney Creek, with a particular focus on projects or community-based programs that support children, seniors, health and social services, art and culture, education, conservation and recreation. Recent grants have included:

• $1.25 Million Hamilton Valley Park Library Construction
• $960,000 Leash Free Dog Park
• $141,000 City of Hamilton Maplewood Park Splash Pad
• $92,500 Friends of the Eramosa Karst
• $45,000 Janet Lee Elementary Community Building Project
• $127,500 to post-secondary scholarship recipients

Currently, the Trust receives $1 for every tonne of residual material received at the SCRF. Unfortunately, this funding is tied to receipt of waste at the site and, under the SCRF’s current approval, is set to run out very soon.

In addition to the over $8.5 million Terrapure’s funding has allowed the Trust to distribute to community initiatives to date, the expansion of the site would allow this funding to continue to the tune of approximately $7 million additionally over the remaining life of the expanded site. This is in addition to funds Terrapure may direct to the City of Hamilton through a separate agreement.

On behalf of the community groups, schools and students that benefit from the Heritage Green Community Trust’s funding, we ask you to approve the SCRF EA so that we can continue to support so many worthwhile initiatives in upper Stoney Creek. We thank you for your consideration.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Comment #48

Community Liaison Committee

We are writing this letter to you to express our opinions as the voting members of the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) for the above-mentioned landfill.

The voting members of the CLC all agree that the primary goal of the community is to shorten the active life of the landfill. As such, we are all in agreement of Terrapure's request to allow substitution of waste in the areas currently designated for clean fill. This substitution would allow the landfill to cease active operations in the shortest period.

Additionally, the majority, but not all, of the voting members object to the proposed application for amendment to the current permit as presented to us for the following reasons:

• Terrapure's request to add additional waste above current tonnage increases the height and size of the end use topography and extends the lifespan of the operation. This is counter to the primary goal of the community—to shorten the active operations.
• Additional waste may also result in additional truck traffic. Additional truck traffic, over the existing approved limit is a concern to the community.

All voting members of the CLC are in agreement that any future applications for footprint expansion and/or height increase would be opposed by the aforementioned members.

In conclusion, the majority, but not all, of the voting members of CLC cannot support the application as presented and as representatives of the Community at large we ask that you weigh this voice of the community when considering your decision.

Proponent’s response

Height, Site Footprint and Visual Impact

As described in Section 6.1.1., the proposed capacity increase will extend the peak height of the SCRF by approximately 2.5 m. The horizontal limits will extend further toward the north, back to the original approved footprint of the SCRF. The area currently approved to accept industrial fill will be replaced with a base liner system to accept residual material.

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls.

Closure Planning

As noted in Section 6.2.6 of the EA Report, the Site could reach capacity in as little as 10 years assuming the maximum allowable fill rate, or approximately 13 years using the average fill rate. Allowing for up to an additional 2 years to achieve Site closure, it is anticipated that the operating stage of the SCRF would be between approximately 10-15 years.

Truck Traffic

The potential effect on traffic was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the proposed Undertaking will have no effect on traffic since the Undertaking will not change the volume of SCRF truck traffic from the current volumes (Section 6.2.3.1).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR. The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

Terrapure has amended the EA to include a commitment to prepare a Truck Operations Monitoring Framework describing proposed driver training and awareness strategies, in consultation with the City of Hamilton; and to maintain the Framework during construction and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to require the Truck Operations Monitoring Framework to be provided to the City of Hamilton for a 30-day comment period prior to finalization; as well as a requirement for the framework to be posted on the proponent’s website once finalized.

Comment #49

Environment Hamilton

Remaining Questions Surrounding Service Area for Landfill

In our submission on the draft EA, we raised very specific questions related to the service area for the landfill. We did this because, while the landfill itself is approved to accept waste from the Province of Ontario, Terrapure’s 52 Imperial Street facility is permitted to accept waste from across Canada and the United States. We understand that, once processed at 52 Imperial Street, waste is then considered to be from Hamilton and eligible for disposal at the Stoney Creek facility. We asked the proponent what amount of waste falls into the category of being from outside of Ontario—then processed at 52 Imperial Street—and ultimately landfilled at the Stoney Creek facility? We explained that this is a question worth reflecting on because the proposed expansion being requested by the proponent is being framed in terms of local need for disposal capacity. We explained that we wanted to get a better sense of how much material is currently being generated (not processed) by Hamilton facilities versus how much is coming in from outside of Ontario to Imperial Street and then the Stoney Creek landfill. And we also asked whether, if the expansion is granted, there is potential for the ‘out of Ontario’ waste streams to grow. We argued that this was also a fair question to ask—given that it is this community that must shoulder both the benefits and the negative impacts of the landfill. The response from the proponent was that Typically, less than 5% of the total tonnage received at the SCRF from Imperial Street on an annual basis comes from outside of Ontario. We do not think this response adequately and clearly responds to the questions we raised. First, we were not provided with any details regarding how much total waste processed at Imperial Street ends up at the landfill—leaving us with no way to know whether <5% means 1 tonne or 37,500 tonnes (5% of the 750,000 tpy limit for the landfill). And no response was provided regarding future plans for importing more out-of-Ontario waste into the Imperial Street facility for ultimate disposal at the landfill. We want to understand whether the landfill expansion is really about accommodating Ontario industrial landfilling needs or whether this request for more capacity is also about the company growing the out-of-Ontario waste stream that is already making its way to the landfill.

Landfill Height

We commented on challenges we had reading fuzzy numbers on the height contour map provided in the EA documentation. We want to understand what the height of the landfill will be at its highest point—in comparison to the surrounding land. Based on what we could decipher from the contour map numbers, we concluded that Option 5 will bring a high point that is 14 m higher than the surrounding land—a height equivalent to a 5-storey building. The proponent’s response to our question about height was not helpful in clarifying whether our understanding of the height of the highest point is correct. The proponent simply indicated that Option 5 brings 2.5 m in height increase over the currently approved landfill. Their response could have been clearer in confirming for us in a basic way what the height, relative to the surrounding land, will be. We remain concerned about the already substantial and now potentially increasing height of this industrial landfill. It does not seem appropriate to be permitting such height (equivalent to 5 storeys) in this particular location.

Surface Water, Total Suspended Particulate and 100 Year Storm Events

We remain concerned about the potential for extreme weather to create issues at this site over time. The proponent has explained that the residual fill is capped, decreasing infiltration and increasing runoff. Our understanding, with a requested shift in the north end of the landfill from industrial fill to residual fill, is that this will increase the area of the landfill that is capped and, therefore, less permeable. Runoff will be a bigger issue as a result. Our sense is that part of the challenge here is that we are raising concerns about the climate crisis and extreme weather, but government requirements have not caught up with the reality of the climate crisis. We are not sure how this can be effectively reconciled. But we continue to believe that this is a significant issue that needs to be considered and properly planned for as we move into a more and more uncertain climate future.

Air Quality Concerns

We continue to be concerned about the potential for air particulate pollution from this site. Further, given the nature of the waste material, there is potential for there to be other harmful elements attached to the particulate. While we appreciate the assurances being provided by the proponent, we worry that, despite these assurance, the potential exists for problems with particulate pollution to emerge. This landfill site is now pretty much surrounded by sensitive uses—residential neighbourhoods and recreational spaces. We continue to have reservations about expansion out and up within such close proximity to these sensitive uses.

Assessment of Potential to Divert Waste Streams from the Landfill Site

We were pleased to see the original terms of reference modified to require the proponent to explore the potential to divert waste streams from the landfill site. However, we are disappointed with the outcome of the assessment. The proponent argues that markets, limited space at the site, and cost prevent it from taking a serious look at diverting waste streams from the site. This leaves us wondering where we will be left once this site is filled to capacity. How will we transition to other approaches to handling our industrial waste when no progress is made even when a proponent is required to assess. We want to see more on this front. Maybe government needs to force the generators of these waste streams to explore the viability of diversion. The proponent makes specific reference to basic oxygen furnace oxide waste and the potential to feed this waste back into the BOF in briquette form. We sit at the community liaison table for ArcelorMittal Dofasco, the company that is currently sending this waste stream to the Terrapure landfill. We will certainly ask about this option and urge AMD to pursue it more aggressively. But we also think the proponent needs to undertake a more rigorous assessment of potential. We were hoping to see an in-depth assessment of waste streams currently going to the site and consideration/exploration of whether diversion is possible. Again, we point to the fact that foundry sand in the US is regularly diverted from landfill. Why are we not doing the same in Ontario? We find it hard to accept that such a huge landfill capacity increase is being pursued at this site when there seem to be options to divert waste streams. We want to see more done on this front.

Conclusions

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the final EA Documentation for the Terrapure Landfill proposal. We have provided some detailed input on issues and concerns related to what we reviewed in the documentation and we have reiterated concerns raised in our submission on the draft Terms of Reference. We also want to restate our opposition to Terrapure’s application to expand the capacity of this landfill site. At the bigger picture level, we do not believe that it is appropriate to expand an industrial landfill in this location, given the amount of residential development that has taken place surrounding the site over recent years. We feel strongly that this location is no longer an appropriate location to allow more residual industrial waste to be landfilled. There are too many sensitive uses in close proximity to the site—and more coming.

Proponent’s response

Service Area

The SCRF plays a critical role in supporting local industry and the local economy with nearly 50% of the materials received at the facility coming from industrial operations directly located within the City of Hamilton (see Figure 1.2: Percentage Breakdown of Residual Material Received by Location in Business Case Analysis, Volume 2 Appendix E).

All of the material received at the SCRF from the 52 Imperial St. facility comes from waste generated by Terrapure owned and operated sites. This amount fluctuates year to year. For example, in 2018, approximately 18,000 tonnes was received from other Terrapure sites out of Province which represented approximately 6% of the total tonnage received at the SCRF.

Terrapure has no current plans to import more out-of-Ontario waste into the Imperial Street facility for ultimate disposal at the SCRF.

The preferred landfill footprint (Option 5) has a height increase of 2.5 m at its peak (218.5 to 221.0 meters above sea level (masl)) compared to the currently approved SCRF. The roads surrounding the SCRF vary in elevation between 192 masl and 206 masl, as shown in Figure 2.1 of the Facility Characteristics Report (Appendix K).

The potential visual effects of the proposed Undertaking were assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that additional screening measures will obscure a majority of views of the Facility. In addition to the existing screening berms and fencing, additional screening measures may include traditional berms, vegetation, fencing with privacy screen or vegetation, mechanically stabilized earth berms, and/or freestanding green walls (Section 6.2.2.1).

Surface Water

As noted in our January 2019 response, the detailed impact assessment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint (Section 6.4 of the EA Report) assessed the risks of increased climate change effects on the Undertaking including the frequency and/or severity of precipitation and weather extremes.

The stormwater management system has been designed to accommodate a Regional storm, which is much greater than the historical daily maximum precipitation amount of 107 mm and the rainfall depth estimated for the 100-year storm event for the SCRF of 127.8 mm.

Further, government review agencies with expertise and an interest in surface water such as the Hamilton Conservation Authority, City of Hamilton, and the MECP District office reviewed and had no concerns with the assessment completed.

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on air quality was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that the SCRF can meet provincial and federal air quality guidelines, with the implementation of appropriate impact management measures and with some added mitigation or slightly reduced operations during periods when operations are occurring near the SCRF fenceline, particularly in Phase 3 when operations may be occurring near the north side of the property (Section 6.2.1.4 of the SCRF EA Report).

The SCRF currently has a dust mitigation plan and best practices related to dust mitigation will continue to be implemented at the Site for all phases of the work, including:

• paving Site access roads (entry and exit) within the buffer area;
• use of road watering on paved and unpaved roads, to minimize dust generation on-Site;
• minimizing the level of daily activity, or increasing dust mitigation activities, when operations are near the fenceline; and
• continued use of the wheel-washing station near the Site exit, to reduce track-out of material from the Site onto First Road West.

In addition, it is a priority for Terrapure to operate in a way that is respectful and considerate of our neighbours. Anyone who experiences an odour is asked to contact Terrapure’s 24/7 Community Response Line (905-561-0305), which the company promotes actively to the neighbouring community. Currently, Terrapure receives a limited number of odour calls, all of which are investigated and documented as part of the Annual Monitoring Report, as well as being reported on to the complainant. Air quality will continue to be monitored through an on-site air quality monitoring station which is documented as part of the annual monitoring process (Sections 6.2.1.4 and 8.1.4 of the SCRF EA Report).

Diversion Opportunities

As noted in our January 2019 response Terrapure will continue to investigate emerging technologies for potential diversion options, both on and off-Site, as part of providing services to the marketplace that minimize waste and maximize the recovery or recycling of valuable industrial by-products.

Terrapure will also continue to work with its customers, like ArcelorMittal, to ensure diversion at the source of the generated material takes place.

Furthermore, Terrapure will monitor the introduction of regulations that may assist in creating more financially viable diversion tools, as well as the establishment of viable end-markets for the diverted material. The full on-Site diversion assessment and the conclusions are found in Section 6.5.

It should also be noted that the SCRF does not currently receive foundry sand.

As documented in the Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference and confirmed in the SCRF EA Report, expansion of the existing facility was determined to the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity (see Section 3.2 of the SCRF EA Report).

Land Use and Residential Development

The potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on existing and approved/planned uses in the vicinity of the Site was assessed as part of the SCRF EA and it was determined that there will be no changes to existing or future land uses (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.4.1 of the SCRF EA Report). As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, the following existing impact management measures utilized at the SCRF will continue to be implemented with the proposed Undertaking:

• Maintain minimum 30 m buffers for nuisance reduction.
• Landfill operations measures to minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour.
• Maintain landfill operation best management practices and impact management measures, such as the stormwater management, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures to ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated.

Although there are already visual screening elements at the SCRF, the Site design will include additional screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which will mitigate visual impact and noise (Section 6.2.2.1).

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has met the requirements set out by the EAA and in the ToR, including a condition in the ToR to investigate diversion opportunities.

The City of Hamilton would require a zoning by-law amendment to implement the post-closure plans for the SCRF.

Comment #50

Resident: I hope you will accept this submission regarding Terrapure’s Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment, even though it is a couple of days past the stated deadline. In the letter submitted by Brad Hart (as the Chair of the CLC committee) it states multiple times that the majority but not all members are in opposition to items in Terrapure’s application. As such, I felt it prudent to send my own comments clarifying my position as a community member of the CLC.

It is important to understand that not all CLC members oppose Terrapure’s application with regards to the footprint expansion and the height increase. I am not opposed to either and have no issues with Terrapure’s application. Additionally, the feedback I received when speaking to the community was neutral on the aforementioned items.

I appreciate the extensive efforts the company went through to educate the community, answer questions and address concerns. I am satisfied with the in-depth technical work in the EA that the company shared with us and the community.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted.

MECP status

Noted.

Table 3: Indigenous communities comment summary table

Mississauga of the Credit First Nation

We, the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation—Department of Consultation and Accommodation, have reviewed the draft EA for the Terrapure Stoney Creek Facility and the only comments we have at this time involve the consultation commitments.

In the Draft EA under the heading Indigenous Communities the points are:

• Continue to inform Indigenous communities of project updates and provide the opportunity for topic-specific meetings on an as-needed basis.
• Consider future requests by the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation for ongoing consultation following the EA including but not limited to site tours and monitoring or habitat restoration, at their request.
• Provide the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation with the Environmental Management Plan (abbr>EMP) for their information.

Consider changing the wording under these points to:

• Continue to consult and engage First Nations regarding project updates.
• Diligently examine future requests by the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation for ongoing consultation following the EA including but not limited to site tours and monitoring or habitat restoration, at the First Nations request.
• Provide the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for their review and input.

Proponent’s response

We appreciate the review and agree with the revisions proposed by the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. Further, in order to provide greater clarity regarding these commitments, we will revise the commitments as follows:

• Continue to consult and engage Indigenous communities involved during the SCRF EA (i.e. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation, Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, and Metis Nation of Ontario) as appropriate (e.g. notification of project updates, opportunity to participate in site tours, involvement in habitat restoration, circulation of Environmental Management Plan).
• Diligently examine future requests by the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation for ongoing consultation following EA Act approval of the proposed Undertaking including but not limited to site tours and monitoring or habitat restoration, at the First Nations request.
• Provide the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for their review and input, for Terrapure’s consideration.

MECP status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent provided sufficient responses to the concerns noted and that they will continue to engage with the identified communities throughout the detailed design and operations of the SCRF. The ministry is considering a condition to include a requirement for an Indigenous consultation plan to be prepared in consultation with Indigenous communities that outlines how the proponent will consult with Indigenous communities throughout the life of the landfill.