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

This Ministry Review (Review) is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was May 5, 2017. A one month extension for the completion of the Review was granted by the Director to allow additional time for the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (ministry) to review key issues. 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 into consideration the comments of the government agencies, the public and Indigenous communities.

Executive summary

Who

Brooks Road Environmental (2270386 Ontario Limited)

What

Ministry Review of the environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking to vertically expand the active fill area at the Brooks Road Landfill Site to provide 421,000 m3 of additional waste disposal capacity over a 5 to 7 year time period for solid, non-hazardous, industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) waste. Also proposed is an alteration to the rate at which waste is received at the Site from a daily maximum to an annual maximum to account for seasonal variations in the quantities of waste received.

When

The EA was submitted on February 10, 2017 and was subject to a seven-week public and agency comment period. The comment period for this Review is from July 21, 2017 to August 25, 2017.

Where

The Brooks Road Landfill Site is located at 160 Brooks Road in Cayuga, Haldimand County. It is a 14.3 hectare (ha) site with an approved landfill area of 6 ha.

Why

The Brooks Road Landfill Site is approaching its approved capacity of 624,065 m3. Brooks Road Environmental has identified an opportunity to continue providing solid, non-hazardous, IC&I waste disposal at the existing Site for another 5 to 7 years.

Conclusions

This EA was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and the Environmental Assessment Act, and contained sufficient information to assess the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking. The Review itself is not the EA decision-making mechanism. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change must decide whether or not to approve the EA.

Environmental assessment process

The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) provides a proponent-driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the EAA sets out the general contents for the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA), as well as the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s (MOECC/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, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. Through the EA, the proponent determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

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

1.1 Terms of reference

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 ministry for review and approval by the Minister. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On July 31, 2015 the Minister approved the ToR for the Brooks Road Landfill Site Vertical Capacity Expansion EA and accompanying errata letter. In the ToR, Brooks Road Environmental (BRE) stated that the EA would be prepared in accordance with section 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EAA, thus enabling BRE to “focus” the EA on vertical capacity expansion options at the existing landfill site. The reason provided is that it would be economically unfeasible for BRE, a private proponent, to establish a new landfill site or employ a technology alternative to landfilling. In the ToR, BRE described how it would assess the environmental effects of alternatives, and consult with stakeholders 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 EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. After the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation activities, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and a decision by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

On February 10, 2017 BRE submitted the Brooks Road Landfill Site Vertical Capacity Expansion EA to the ministry and made the EA available for a seven-week public comment period. The comment period ended on March 31, 2017. 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 federal, 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. 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. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA:

  1. has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR
  2. meets the requirements of the EAA
  3. provides sufficient information on the evaluation of alternatives and environmental effects to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking

In the Review, the ministry outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking including the anticipated environmental effects from the undertaking, and proposed mitigation measures. In the Review, the ministry also provides an overview and analysis of public, agency and Indigenous community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

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

The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities to see how their concerns regarding the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the proposed 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 he or she believes 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 published in the Sachem and Glanbrook Gazette, and the Haldimand Press indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period starting July 21, 2017 to August 25, 2017. Copies of the Review have been placed at the same public record locations where the EA was made available, and copies have been distributed to GRT members and potentially affected or interested Indigenous communities. Members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period also received a copy of the Review.

The proposed undertaking

2.1 Background

The Brooks Road Landfill Site is located at 160 Brooks Road in Haldimand County, between Townline Road and Highway 3 (Talbot Road), approximately 2 km east of the Town of Cayuga. The original landfill site, previously known as the Edwards Landfill Site was established in 1959. The Site accepted hazardous waste up until 1971 and IC&I waste until 1977. The Edwards Landfill site was later purchased by Haldimand-Norfolk Sanitary Landfill Inc. (2274462 Ontario Limited) which declared bankruptcy in 2007 leaving no plan to manage the Site. In September 2007, the court appointed SF Partners Inc. as the interim receiver and manager of the landfill. The Site began accepting waste again in October 2009; however, the landfill was unlined and there were non-compliance and historical waste issues.

Brooks Road Environmental (BRE) acquired the site in May 2012 and took actions to remove the historical hazardous waste and convert the Site into a lined, engineered landfill facility. The landfill site was renamed Brooks Road Landfill Site and now operates under Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) number A110302. The Site is 14.3 hectares (ha) with an approved fill area of 6 ha. The Site is approved to accept a maximum of 500 tonnes of solid, non-hazardous waste per day and fill to an approved capacity of 624,065 m3 (including waste and daily/final cover). The Site is allowed to accept waste from across Ontario, although it mainly services local businesses in Haldimand County and surrounding areas. A leachate treatment system is currently being constructed on-site under Industrial Sewage Works ECA number 6869-9EAT28 to replace truck transport of leachate for off-site treatment.

Since BRE’s acquisition of the Site there were a series of non-compliance episodes between 2012 and 2014, including instances of leachate spills into an unlined area of the Site in addition to failure to apply daily cover at the Site. A Director’s Order was issued requiring the proponent to clean up the spills and for all waste to be contained within the lined area of the landfill. Since Fall 2014, BRE has generally been operating the Site in compliance with the ECA terms and conditions, and has been making strides towards improving day-to-day operations.

The MOECC’s Hamilton District Office has been conducting routine inspections of the Brooks Road Landfill for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions of the Site’s ECA and applicable legislation. The most recent inspection completed by the Hamilton District Office was completed in February 2017. Since this inspection BRE has satisfied outstanding compliance issues, which included submitting an updated complaint response procedure, an odour mitigation plan, as well as an action plan for monitoring leachate mounding.

2.1.1 Landfill site and vicinity

The Brooks Road Landfill Site is surrounded by agricultural lands to the east and west. Areas immediately south and north of the Site are identified as part of the North Cayuga Swamp Wetland Complex, a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) (see Figure 2). The North Cayuga Swamp Wetland Complex is characterized by a complex vegetation community made up of thicket swamps of narrow-leaved meadowsweet, buttonbush, winterberry, speckled alder, red maple, gray dogwood, highbush blueberry and willows. The northern portion of the Brooks Road Landfill Site is bound by an abandoned Canadian Southern Railway rail line.

Due to the Brooks Road Landfill Site’s proximity to the North Cayuga Swamp Wetland Complex, wetland areas around the landfill are rich in wildlife species. A total of thirty eight species of birds were observed in the field, including four provincial species at risk (SAR): barn swallow, eastern wood-pewee, least bittern and wood thrush. A total of eight amphibian species were documented in the field in addition to two reptiles: Blanding’s turtle and snapping turtle, both which are considered provincial SAR.

The Site is situated on the Haldimand Clay Plain which has relatively poor drainage. The regional topography is generally flat with a gentle slope to the south towards Lake Erie. The elevation of the Site is approximately 200 m Above Sea Level (MASL). The overburden geology is relatively uniform beneath the Site. In general, the Site is characterized by a thick (14 m to 18 m) layer of stratified silty clay, silty clay till and varved (annually layered) clays, underlain by a thin (1 m to 3 m) discontinuous layer of silty sand till. Bedrock has been encountered at depths varying from 15.2 m to 20.2 m below the ground surface. A thin deposit of topsoil is generally observed at the surface of the Site, with the exception of the southwestern portion.

The Local Study Area (see Figure 1), drawn one kilometer around the landfill Site’s property boundaries, is located within the jurisdiction of both the Grand River Conservation Authority (Northern Lake Erie Watershed) and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (Lake Ontario and Niagara Peninsula Watershed). Portions of the landfill Site property are located within Grand River Conservation Authority’s regulation limits. The former Canadian Southern Railway (CSR) has functioned as a watershed divide between the northernmost portion of the Site and the south of the Site.

Stormwater runoff from inactive landfill areas is directed to a stormwater management pond located on the southwest corner of the Site. Treated stormwater is then discharged to the roadside ditch along the east side of Brooks Road which drains in a southerly direction through a culvert under the abandoned Canadian National Railway (CNR) rail bed north of Highway 3. This ditch leads into a small stream channel at the head waters of Norton Creek that is connected to the Grand River located approximately 7 km from the Site (see Figure 2). Stormwater runoff from active landfill areas is directed to the leachate collection system.

There are twenty-four water wells located in the vicinity of the Local Study Area, with twelve wells located within the Local Study Area (seven observation wells, two industrial supply wells, one commercial supply well, and one livestock supply well). There are no known domestic supply wells located within the Local Study Area. Two of the water wells in the Local Study Area are located on the abandoned Cayuga Gypsum Mine property northwest of the Brooks Road Landfill Site which operated from 1942 to 1949.

From a Source Water Protection aspect, the Site is not in an area where landfilling would be a significant threat to drinking water. The Site is not located near drinking water intakes nor is it located within a significant groundwater recharge area or a highly vulnerable aquifer. Therefore, there are minimal source water protection concerns associated with landfilling activities.

There are no residential dwellings immediately adjacent to the Site; however, there are eleven residential dwellings located within one kilometer of the Site – five to the northwest and six along Talbot Road to the south of the Site. Two of these residential dwellings are located within 500 m of the landfill property.

With respect to land use within the Local Study Area, Brooks Road and the abandoned CNR railway to south of the Site parallel to Highway 3 are listed as "Identified Trail Locations" in the Haldimand Country Official Plan, and “Proposed Special Use Routes" in the Haldimand County Trails Master Plan (2009). However, these recreational routes have not yet been implemented by the County. There are also no known traditional uses of the lands within the landfill Site property or the Local Study Area by Indigenous communities.

2.2 Description of the preferred undertaking

The proposed undertaking involves the construction and operation of a vertically expanded landfill to continue accepting IC&I waste at the existing Brooks Road Landfill Site for another five to seven years. Waste will be added on top of the existing landfill cells according to new contours, thus the fill area footprint area of 6 ha will remain the same. BRE is specifically seeking approval for:

  • an additional 421,000 m3 (approximately 294,700 tonnes) of waste disposal capacity including waste, daily cover, and interim cover for a total approved Site capacity of 1,045,065 3 (approximately 731,546 tonnes)
  • a change to the daily maximum fill rate of 500 tonnes over 302 days per year, to an annual maximum fill rate of 151,000 tonnes (daily fill rate will vary)

The Site currently has an approved maximum fill rate of up to 500 tonnes per day. As part of the EA, it is proposed that this rate be revised from a daily maximum to an annual maximum in order to provide operational flexibility during busier periods during the spring and summer. With an annual maximum fill rate of 151,000 tonnes the Site would have the flexibility to accept up to 1,000 tonnes of waste per day during the spring and summer, and much less waste during the fall and winter months.

As part of the vertical expansion, there would be associated works such as the construction of an on-site haul road and changes in the waste drop-off and equipment locations. The leachate treatment system and stormwater systems currently approved for the existing Site are anticipated to remain the same as they were sized to accommodate a future expansion. The new on-site leachate treatment system being commissioned is a batch leachate treatment system designed to treat 30 m3/day of leachate and handle a peak flow rate of 60 m3/day. Treated leachate will be discharged to the roadside ditch that runs along the east side of Brooks Road.

The current approved landfill Site at closure will have a maximum height restriction of 210.5 MASL for Stage 1, and 205.5 MASL for Stages 2 and 3 (see Figure 3). The final waste pile side slopes at the time of closure would be within the range of 25% and 5%.The proposed vertically expanded landfill at closure will have 25% grade side slopes and a peak elevation of 221.5 MASL (see Figures 4 and 5). Therefore, the highest point of the final expanded landfill will be 23 metres higher than the surrounding landscape of 198.96 MASL, and 11 metres higher than the maximum height restriction for the existing landfill at closure.

Figure 1: EA study areas

Download Figure 1 (PNG)

An aerial photo showing the location of the Brooks Road Landfill Site, and a one kilometre-radius Local Study Area in relation to nearby roads, wooded areas, and farm fields. The Brooks Road Landfill Site is located between Townline Road and Highway 3 (Talbot Road). The western part of the landfill property is bound by Brooks Road. The landfill is surrounded by agricultural lands to the east and west, and wetlands to the north and south. The nearest populated area is the Village of Cayuga two kilometres west of the landfill.

Figure 2: Wetland and watercourse features

Download Figure 2 (PNG)

A map showing the Brooks Road Landfill Site and a one kilometre-radius Local Study Area in relation to watercourses, wetlands, roads, and railways. Areas immediately to the south and north of the landfill are part of the provincially significant North Cayuga Swamp Wetland Complex. Grand River Conservation Authority identified wetlands are interspersed throughout the Local Study Area. No watercourses pass through the landfill property. The northern portion of the site is bound by an abandoned Canadian Southern Railway rail line and the Canadian National Railway rail line is approximately 200 m to the south of the property boundary.

Figure 3: Existing conditions

Download Figure 3 (PNG)

A schematic diagram showing the layout of the existing Brooks Road Landfill Site and buffer areas between the active fill area and the property boundary. The limit of waste is approximately 71 m from the northern property boundary, 35 m to 158 m from the southern property boundary, and approximately 30 m from the property line to the east and west. A stormwater management pond and leachate treatment facility is situated to the south of the active landfill area. There are three waste cells (stages) within the active landfill area.

Figure 4: Preferred undertaking

Download Figure 4 (PNG)

A visual rendering of the preferred vertical expansion method (Alternative 2) showing a raised active fill area, a vegetated screening berm along Brooks Road, an access road from Brooks Road with storage and operator trailers at the entrance, in addition to, a scale house, stormwater management pond and leachate treatment facility to the south of the active fill area.

Figure 5: Preferred undertaking contour map

Download Figure 5 (JPEG)

A site development plan showing the contours of the vertical landfill expansion. The plan includes the locations of stormwater management and leachate treatment facilities, surface water/groundwater monitoring points, a clay stockpile area along the northern perimeter, and vegetation screening berms. The vertically expanded fill area is trapezoidal in shape with 25% grade side slopes.

Results of the ministry review

The Review provides the ministry’s 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 EA process, please refer to the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking.

The purpose of the ministry Review is to determine whether:

  • the EA has met the requirements of the ToR and the EAA
  • there are any outstanding issues with the EA
  • the proposed undertaking has technical merit

“Must haves” in the EA:

  • the EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR
  • EA must include all the basic EAA information requirements
  • EA demonstrates where all the additional commitments in the ToR were met, including studies and the consultation process

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The ministry concludes that the EA has addressed the commitments made in the ToR and satisfies the requirements of the EAA.

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

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is consultation during the preparation of the EA. Consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be undertaken prior to the submission of the EA to the ministry. Consultation must be completed in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR.

During the preparation of the EA, BRE established a consultation process that shared information on the study and provided opportunities for the public, GRT agencies and Indigenous communities to provide specific or general input. Consultation activities included:

  • Establishing and maintaining a stakeholder and Indigenous community contact list
  • Publishing notices in local newspapers
  • Posting documents on the website
  • Mailing notices to residents to inform of study milestones
  • Hosting teleconference calls with GRT agencies
  • Meetings with the Six Nations of the Grand River
  • Providing updates on the EA at the Brooks Road Landfill Site Public Liaison Committee and to Haldimand County Council
  • Responding to letters and email correspondence from the public
  • Conducting two open houses for the general public to obtain input on the evaluation of vertical expansion options and the selection of the preferred option
  • Providing a draft EA for GRT agencies and Indigenous communities to review and comment

In accordance with the requirements of subsection 6.1(2) of the EAA, consultation activities are described in section 6 of the EA and are documented in a Record of Consultation accompanying the EA.

When the EA is submitted to the ministry, ministry-driven consultation occurs in the form of a seven-week EA comment period. The GRT, the public and affected or interested Indigenous communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry regarding the fulfillment of ToR requirements, the EA itself, and the proposed undertaking.

All comments received by the ministry during the seven-week EA comment period from February 10, 2017 to March 31, 2017 were forwarded to the proponent for a response. Summaries of all comments and BRE’s responses are included in Tables 1 and 2 appended to this Review. Copies of comment submissions are available in Appendix B.

Government Review Team

During the preparation of the EA, BRE sought input from members of the GRT including provincial ministries, federal departments, and municipal agencies who:

  1. may have a potential interest in or mandate(s) related to the proposed undertaking
  2. issue approvals or permit requirements administered under their respective jurisdictional authorities
  3. may have potential concerns about the proposed undertaking

The GRT consisted of the following agencies in addition to the MOECC:

  • Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)
  • Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH)
  • Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MHLTC)
  • Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS)
  • Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)
  • Ministry of Education; Ministry of Transportation (MTO)
  • Ontario Provincial Police
  • Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
  • Environment Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • Transport Canada

Other local agencies included the Grand River Conservation Authority, the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, the Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit, the Grand Erie District School Board, and Haldimand County. BRE consulted with the GRT through written and electronic correspondence to confirm their interest in the project and to request a review of the draft EA report. A summary of the GRT consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA is provided in section 6 of the EA.

BRE provided a copy of the draft EA to the GRT for review and comment between July 22, 2016 and September 9, 2016. Comments from the GRT on the draft EA and BRE’s responses are summarized in section 6 of the EA and included in the Record of Consultation.

Following the formal submission of the EA to the ministry, GRT members were provided copies of the final EA for review during the seven-week EA comment period from February 10 to March 31, 2017. All comments received by the ministry during the EA review period were forwarded to BRE for a response (see Table 1).

Public consultation

The objective of public consultation is to inform and seek input from interested members of the public on the EA process and the proposed undertaking. A detailed summary of the public consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA can be found in section 6 of the EA.

Members of the public, which includes the general public, communities, local organizations, interest groups and property owners, were provided with an opportunity to participate and provide input during the preparation of the EA. BRE carried out public consultation in a variety of ways including hosting two public open houses, publishing newspaper notifications of EA milestones, arranging for notice mail-outs to residents, and posting EA documents on the BRE web page. Prior to the formal submission of the EA, members of the public also had an opportunity to comment on the draft EA, which was made available for a seven-week period at public review locations and on the BRE website.

The Brooks Road Landfill Site has an established Public Liaison Committee which serves as a forum for the distribution, review and exchange of information regarding the operation of the existing landfill Site. BRE also used these committee meetings as a venue for discussing the status of the EA and Site concerns. BRE documented how public comments were addressed in section 6 (Table 6.3) of the EA as well as in the Record of Consultation.

Members of the public had the opportunity to review and comment on the final EA submitted to the MOECC during the formal seven-week EA comment period. Eight submissions were received from local residents and businesses. Local residents raised concerns about odour as well as surface water and groundwater contamination. Local businesses wrote in support of the landfill expansion. All comments received by the MOECC and the proponent’s responses to the comments are documented in Table 2.

Indigenous community consultation

In addition to public consultation, proponents are required to consult with Indigenous communities that have credibly asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights that may be negatively affected by the project. Indigenous peoples include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada.

During the preparation of the ToR, BRE contacted the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (now the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation) to develop a list of Indigenous communities to be consulted during the EA. BRE consulted the following Indigenous communities and organizations during the preparation of the EA:

  • Six Nations of the Grand River
  • Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation
  • Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs
  • Haudenosaunee Development Institute
  • Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) Hamilton-Wentworth Métis Council
  • MNO Niagara Region Métis Council

Indigenous communities were contacted at key milestones during the preparation of the EA and were provided with a copy of: the Notice of Commencement, invitations to Public Open Houses, copies of the draft EA, the Notice of EA Submission, and a copy of the final EA report. BRE also offered to meet with Indigenous communities.

BRE met with Six Nations of the Grand River on July 21, 2016. At this meeting, Six Nations of the Grand River asked questions about the landfill’s service area, environmental monitoring activities and odour management. BRE offered to give a tour of the landfill to look at the operations and the new leachate treatment system being constructed. BRE also asked if a community member would like to fill the vacant position on the Public Liaison Committee.

During the seven-week inspection period, MOECC staff followed-up with each Indigenous community on the project contact list to confirm receipt of the final EA. All communities confirmed receipt of the final EA. MOECC staff also made multiple rounds of phone calls and sent emails to Indigenous community members to request comments. No formal comments from Indigenous communities were received by the MOECC during the EA inspection period. The MOECC will continue to consult with Indigenous communities during the five-week ministry Review inspection period.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The ministry is satisfied that the consultation carried out by BRE meets the requirements of the EAA and that consultation activities were completed in accordance with the approved ToR. The ministry believes that BRE provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Indigenous communities to provide input during the preparation of the EA.

The EA documents the consultation methods that were undertaken by the proponent to engage government reviewers, Indigenous communities and members of the public during the development of the EA. The EA discusses the concerns raised and how they were addressed.

3.2 EA process

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

In general, BRE 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.

Focused EA

In the ToR, BRE identified that it would undertake a focused EA to evaluate vertical expansion options to provide 421,000 m3 of additional waste disposal capacity to operate the Brooks Road Landfill Site for another five to seven years. The proponent’s rationale for seeking additional waste disposal capacity considered:

  • The current IC&I waste diversion rates and disposal capacity in Ontario.
  • Recovering a portion of the financial capital spent to remediate the existing landfill.
  • Minimizing the environmental impacts by offering a local waste disposal solution that is engineered to modern standards.

The ToR included an assessment of ‘alternatives to’ the undertaking which analyzed the viability of alternatives, including the “do nothing” option that would allow BRE to continue providing waste disposal services. Alternatives were assessed based on whether they were feasible from permitting, technical, financial perspectives. Additional recycling, thermal treatment of waste, and horizontal expansion were ruled out as viable alternatives. The assessment of “alternatives to” identified that expanding the existing landfill vertically is the most viable and cost-effective solution, compared to establishing a new landfill elsewhere and exporting waste to other disposal facilities. Horizontal landfill expansion in particular was not considered as a viable alternative method due to site constraints and the costs for installing additional landfill liner. A summary of this assessment is also provided in section 3 of the EA.

The EA completed by BRE focused on the development and assessment of alternative methods of vertically expanding the Brooks Road Landfill Site, as well as the impacts of modifying the maximum daily waste disposal limit as outlined in the approved ToR and errata letter.

Study area

The EA identifies a Site Study Area which consists of the Brooks Road Landfill Site, and a Local Study Area that extends one kilometre from the Site’s property boundaries (see Figure 1). The Local Study Area was modified or extended as needed for different disciplines to assess the effects on individual environmental components.

Assessment of alternative methods and environmental effects

BRE identified three alternative methods for vertically expanding the Brooks Road Landfill Site in addition to four leachate treatment alternatives. BRE developed evaluation criteria and indicators to assess the impacts of alternatives on the following environmental components:

  • Atmospheric environment
  • Geology & hydrogeology
  • Surface water resources
  • Terrestrial and aquatic environment
  • Archaeology & cultural heritage
  • Transportation
  • Land use
  • Agriculture/soils & mining
  • Site design & operations
  • Social environment
  • Economic environment
  • Aboriginal communities
Assessment of alternative methods

The three alternative methods developed for the EA differ slightly in slope, contours, and final height (as the footprint of the fill area is the same). The alternatives were:

  • Alternative 1: 33% grade side slopes, crest elevation of 218.1 MASL, with a peak elevation of 219.7 MASL
  • Alternative 2: 25% grade side slopes, crest elevation of 221.0 MASL, with a peak elevation of 221.5 MASL
  • Alternative 3: 33% grade side slopes, crest elevation of 221.3 MASL, with a 4.0 metre wide bench at 210.0 MASL, and a peak elevation of 222.1 MASL

BRE completed a qualitative comparative evaluation of the net effects of these three vertical expansion methods on the twelve environmental components listed above. Overall, there were no differences in net impacts between the three alternatives on all environmental components except for minor differences with respect to air quality and site design and operations. Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred method because of its slightly lower air quality impacts, and because the final waste pile slopes of 25% is more compatible with the contours of the existing landfill at closure, compared to the other two alternatives.

BRE evaluated four off-site and on-site leachate treatment options in the EA. The on-site treatment option was to construct a biological leachate treatment facility. The off-site treatment options were:

  • Alternative 1a: Leachate transport by tanker truck to a licensed liquid industrial waste disposal facility.
  • Alternative 1b: Pre-treatment (on-site) with transport by tanker truck to the municipal waste water treatment plant (WWTP).
  • Alternative 1c: Pre-treatment (on-site) with transport via direct forcemain connection to the municipal sanitary sewer and Cayuga WWTP.

The proponent confirmed that the on-site treatment of leachate is the preferred long-term leachate treatment option for the expanded landfill based on a comparative evaluation of the potential net effects from all four leachate treatment options on the twelve environmental components.

Environmental effects

The assessment of air quality focused on predicting changes in property boundary concentrations of total suspended particulate (TSP) matter that would result from truck traffic and road dust during normal operations (25 trucks) and peak operations (50 trucks). The air quality modelling completed in the EA looked at four on-site truck route configurations for the three vertical expansion methods and the resulting particulate matter emissions. TSP modelling results were compared against the Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC). AAQC are desirable concentrations of air contaminants which have been established by the MOECC for protecting against adverse health and natural environment effects. For all three alternatives, the modelled 24-hour average TSP concentrations at the property boundary were lower than the AAQC which indicates that no potential adverse effects to air quality with respect to TSP are expected.

BRE conducted on-site odour measurements in 2014 and 2016 which indicated that odour emissions originate near the leachate tank and the working face of the active landfill areas. Odour was not modelled for the three vertical expansion alternative methods for landfill expansion as BRE anticipates that on-site and off-site odour will be similar to existing conditions since landfill operations will remain relatively unchanged, or will improve once the new leachate treatment facility becomes operational. BRE commits to continuing daily odour monitoring and enhancing odour mitigation activities for the landfill expansion to minimize odour impacts to residences.

A noise assessment was completed which examined worst-case noise scenarios and resulting effects on off-site residential dwellings for all three alternative methods. The predicted sound pressure levels at off-site residential dwellings do not significantly differ from existing conditions. The predicted sound pressure levels range from 40 A-weighted decibels (dBA) to 52 dBA and are below MOECC’s 55 dBA environmental noise guideline for a 16-hour period from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., which indicates that no potential adverse noise impacts are anticipated.

The assessment of impacts to the geology and hydrogeology within the Site and Local Study Areas involved the review of background information including borehole, water well, and oil and gas well records. BRE also estimated the leachate generation rates for each vertical expansion alternative and determined that leachate generation rates will not change from existing conditions. Furthermore, the new on-site leachate collection and treatment facility will prevent leachate contact with groundwater; therefore, there are no potential effects to groundwater quality or flow characteristics. In addition, as the footprint of the landfill area will be the same, there will be no net effects to site geology or the geology within the Local Study Area.

Surface water net effects were assessed by comparing pre-expansion conditions with future expansion conditions. The surface water assessment examined potential soil loss due to increased slopes, 100 year peak flows, and total runoff volumes for all vertical expansion alternatives. The soil loss rates, peak flows and runoff volumes for all three vertical expansion alternatives at post-closure were determined to be higher than the values for the existing approved landfill. However, as the current stormwater management system was designed to the 1 in 100 year storm standard and is expected to be able to withstand runoff from all storm events up to the Regional Storm (Hurricane Hazel) event, there are no anticipated impacts to downstream watercourses.

BRE also calculated the contaminating lifespan for the expanded landfill compared to the existing landfill. The contaminating lifespan is the period of time during which the landfill will produce contaminants at levels that would have an unacceptable impact if discharged to the environment. Previous investigations have indicated that the Contaminating Life Span for the existing Brooks Road Landfill Site will be less than 25 years. With the landfill expansion, the Contaminating Life Span for the Site may be an additional 53 years and will thus require a longer period for monitoring and maintenance following landfill closure.

BRE assessed the potential net effects of the vertical expansion methods on existing terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic ecosystems. Information on the terrestrial and aquatic environment within the Local and Site Study Areas was gathered from a combination of secondary literature sources, field investigations and agency consultation. A number of field investigations were conducted to: delineate wetlands, ecological area types, survey amphibians and breeding birds, and to record incidental wildlife observations. A rapid aquatic habitat assessment was also conducted along the roadside ditch at the edge of the Brooks Road Landfill Site.

Since the landfill will be expanded vertically and there will be no change to the footprint of the landfill area or vegetation removal, no impacts to vegetation communities and the North Cayuga Swamp Wetland Complex are anticipated. There are also no anticipated effects to aquatic ecosystems as leachate and stormwater runoff will be contained and treated within the landfill Site prior to discharge to the natural environment. To exclude wildlife from accessing the landfill Site and to protect wildlife species including SAR, BRE has committed to installing a permanent silt fence along the entire perimeter of the property, and to train staff in SAR identification and the steps to take when a suspected SAR is encountered. BRE also proposes to apply 150 mm of daily cover to the working face at the end of each day to deter avian wildlife from accessing the landfill Site. With these mitigation measures, terrestrial and aquatic environment impacts are expected to be limited during landfill expansion.

Potential effects on archaeology and cultural heritage were assessed by reviewing background information and completing the MTCS checklists for non-specialists: “Criteria for Evaluation Archaeological Potential” and “Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes”. As the proposed undertaking is the vertical expansion of the existing landfill area, there is no potential for loss or disturbance to archaeological and cultural heritage features.

The main transportation assessment completed was for truck traffic that would result from the landfill expansion. Turning movement counts were conducted at the intersection of Highway 3 and Brooks Road and at the existing Brooks Road Landfill Site driveway during peak periods. Future (2021 and 2026) peak period traffic effects modelled for these two intersections did not indicate vehicle delay issues or capacity constraints at the two intersections during peak landfill operating conditions.

BRE also completed a desktop scan of major airports and aerodromes in proximity to the Local Study Area to determine the potential for bird strikes as a result of landfill operations. BRE did not identify any major facilities; however, members of the public indicated that there are local airstrips in close proximity to the landfill which could be affected. BRE indicated that the application of daily cover to deter avian wildlife at the landfill Site would reduce the risk of bird-aircraft collisions.

The assessment of the land use environmental component consisted of a review of available planning information from secondary sources and site visits to local residences within the Local Study Area. Information associated with agriculture, soils and mining was also identified using secondary sources of information, including Farm Tax Rated parcel data. Continued landfill operations at the Brooks Road Site are not expected to impact current agricultural operations within the Local Study Area. There are also no active mining operations within the Local Study Area.

The EA included an assessment of socio-economic effects resulting from the vertical landfill expansion. BRE examined the social effects of the landfill expansion, including visual impacts. The vertical landfill expansion will result in visual impacts to the areas surrounding the Site; however BRE proposes to mitigate this nuisance impact with additional vegetation plantings on the existing screening berm. BRE also considered employment opportunities provided by the continued operation of the Brooks Road Landfill Site.

The EA included a review of Indigenous community interests in addition to traditional land uses within the Local Study Area. BRE’s consultation with Indigenous communities indicates that lands within the Local Study Area are not being used for traditional purposes. Therefore, the vertical landfill expansion is not expected to impact Indigenous land uses within the Local Study Area.

Cumulative effects assessment

BRE included a discussion of the cumulative effects of the proposed landfill expansion on the environment in the EA. BRE consulted federal EA guidance materials on the assessment of cumulative effects. The cumulative effects assessment completed for the vertical landfill expansion considered impacts to the North Cayuga Wetland Complex adjacent to the Brooks Road Landfill Site, forecasted traffic conditions on Highway 3 at Brooks Road, and air emissions with reference to background ambient air quality.

The cumulative effects assessment included a discussion of past, present and future landfill activities and their impacts on the North Cayuga Wetland Complex. The assessment concluded that the landfill expansion will not result in any additional adverse effects to the Provincially Significant Wetland complex as landfill Site operations have improved since 1959 when it was an unlined facility. The Site is now a lined, engineered waste disposal facility with a new leachate treatment system. Furthermore the former CSR rail bed, currently being used for clay stockpiling, forms a hydrological divide between the landfill and the wetland complex to the north. Permanent erosion and sediment control measures such as heavy duty silt fencing and a vegetative buffer are in place at the north toe of the clay stockpile slope. The CSR corridor will remain as a buffer between the landfill Site and the wetland complex. For the portions of the North Cayuga Wetland Complex to the east and south of the Brooks Road Landfill Site, the stormwater system that is designed to the 100-year storm standard is expected to mitigate present and future surface water quality and quantity effects. BRE also stated that post-closure plans for the landfill that will be developed may have opportunities for ecological enhancement of the landfill Site through final grading contours and restoration plantings.

The cumulative effects assessment for traffic indicates that there will be minimal delays at the Highway 3 at Brooks Road intersection under future conditions in 2021 and 2026 with levels of service of ‘B’ or better during weekday and weekend peak hours.

BRE completed a cumulative effects analysis for fine particulate matter PM2.5 (particulate matter with diameter of 2.5 microns) from truck traffic and road dust. BRE modelled particulate matter concentrations from the proposed landfill expansion operations, and added these concentrations to the background PM2.5 concentrations from the West Hamilton air quality monitoring station (the nearest station to the landfill) to determine the potential for air quality impacts on human health. BRE concluded that the average PM2.5 concentration of the proposed landfill expansion operation combined with average background concentrations will be lower than Ontario’s Ambient Air Quality (AAQC) for PM2.5 averaged over a 24-hour time period, which indicates a minimal risk to health.

Climate change
Greenhouse gas emissions

BRE assessed the effects of the landfill expansion on climate change by modelling the potential methane emissions from the Site to year 2024, which is the assumed peak year of methane generation based on the proposed additional five to seven years of landfill operation. BRE addressed potential climate change risks to key infrastructure components during the construction, operation, closure, and post-closure stages of the expanded landfill site as well as adaptation measures. MOECC’s August 2016 draft guide “Consideration of Climate Change in Environmental Assessment in Ontario” was consulted in this assessment.

BRE estimates that 809 tonnes of methane (roughly equivalent to 20,224 tonnes CO2e) is estimated for year 2024, and that the methane generation rate will decline after Site closure. BRE considers the amount of methane that will be generated from the expanded Site as low, compared to a municipal landfill of the same size, since the Site receives primarily IC&I waste which contains less methane-generating organic material. Based on proponent’s methane generation assessment, BRE concluded that the low level of methane that would be generated from the expanded Site, would not make the implementation of a landfill gas collection and control system feasible. The EA provided a list of potential greenhouse gas mitigation measures that could be implemented from construction to post closure.

Extreme weather effects

The potential for impacts to the landfill Site’s management infrastructure components due to climate change was determined for all stages: construction, operation, closure, and post-closure. Climate change risks to landfill operations would be mainly attributed to changes in weather patterns: rainfall, storms, temperature and moisture. BRE notes that construction schedules and landfill operations will have the flexibility to be altered to reflect site and weather conditions. The stormwater management system (ditches, culverts and pond) which is designed for the 100-year storm will be able to withstand runoff from all storm events up to the Regional Storm (Hurricane Hazel) event.

The effects of climate change on the expanded landfill are expected to be more pronounced during post-closure activities since the contaminating lifespan of the site could extend 53 years after active waste disposal operations at the landfill cease. Post-closure activities and infrastructure could be more susceptible to changes in temperature and precipitation during this time. Climate change risks during post-closure were mainly identified as potential impacts to final soil and vegetative cover from erosion. Different vegetation species may also need to be selected to adapt to changing climate conditions. Adaptation measures prescribed in the EA aim to strengthen and increase the resilience of the landfill cover and leachate management system during post-closure. Measures mentioned in the EA include:

  • Choosing vegetation known to withstand erosion and climatic stressors such as extreme heat, drought tolerance, and flood resistance
  • Planting additional vegetation every five to ten years
  • Modifying the existing stormwater management ponds, if necessary

Overall, BRE considers that a change in climate will have no adverse effect on waste management infrastructure components during all phases of the proposed vertical landfill expansion.

3.2.1 Key issues

No key EA process related issues were raised during the EA review comment period. BRE addressed EA process related issues raised by the MOECC during the review of the draft EA and the resolution of these issues are documented in the EA report and the accompanying Record of Consultation.

3.2.2 Conclusion

The ministry is generally satisfied with BRE’s EA decision making process. The EA provides an appropriate rationale for the proposed undertaking. BRE developed and evaluated a reasonable range of alternative methods for the vertical expansion of the landfill area at the Brooks Road Landfill Site. The EA provides a description of the potentially affected environment within the Local Study Area that took into consideration the EAA’s broad definition of the environment, identifies the potential effects from each alternative method, and assessed them based on their relative advantages and disadvantages.

The EA identifies mitigation measures for the predicted environmental effects of the preferred vertical expansion method and proposes monitoring and contingency plans to ensure that any potential negative impacts of the undertaking are minimized. The ministry is also satisfied that the requirements in the EAA for consultation with the public, GRT, and Indigenous communities have been met, and that consultation was carried out in accordance with the approved ToR.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is described in section 5.7 of the EA along with a summary of the potential effects, mitigation measures and net (residual) effects. The proposed undertaking is to vertically expand the landfill, resulting in the addition of 421,000 m3 of fill area (air space), as well as to change the daily maximum fill rate of 500 tonnes to an annual maximum fill rate of 151,000 tonnes. BRE proposes to use the newly constructed on-site biological leachate treatment system and existing stormwater management system for the vertically expanded landfill.

3.3.1 Key issues

Issues regarding the proposed undertaking were raised by the GRT during draft EA review and during the formal EA review comment period. Comment submissions and Acknowledgement of Receipt forms from the GRT, including the MOECC, are included in Appendix B. All GRT comments, along with the proponent’s responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction are documented in Table 1 attached to this Review. Comment submissions from members of the public and businesses have been compiled in Table 2 along with the proponent’s responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction. Key issues raised by the public and GRT agencies are described in the subsections below.

Odour management

Three submissions were made by local residents living near the Brooks Road Landfill Site. The residents expressed concerns about the ongoing off-site odour migration issues from the landfill which have been interfering with the enjoyment of their properties for a number of years.

To mitigate odour impacts, the EA states a commitment to implement an Odour Best Management Plan for the expanded landfill Site which will involve the continuation and modification of existing odour control measures, and the development of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for handling, investigating, and mitigating odour complaints. BRE indicated that this Odour Best Management Plan will include the items suggested by the ministry including: restrictions to operating in conditions that may have the potential to impact sensitive receptors; limiting waste types; detailed odour inspections; and, contingency plans. In addition to the current monitoring conducted by BRE personnel and third party consultants, BRE commits to augment monitoring and mitigation measures when weather predictions for Cayuga show meteorological conditions that have historically been tied to odour complaints.

The MOECC commented that odour conditions at the Brooks Road Landfill Site were not modelled in the EA based on the assumption that odour conditions are expected to remain the same. MOECC noted that this assumption may not be true as BRE is seeking an alteration to the rate at which is waste is received from a daily maximum of 500 tonnes per day to an annual maximum of 151,000 tonnes per year, to allow for more waste to be disposed during the spring and summer season when people spend more time outdoors.

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s commitments to carry out additional odour monitoring and to adopt a more proactive odour mitigation strategy to minimize the potential for off-site odour migration. However, the ministry has outstanding concerns regarding future odour conditions during landfill expansion. To confirm the effectiveness of odour mitigation measures and the leachate treatment system to minimize fugitive odours and reduce odour complaints prior to landfill expansion activities, the ministry is considering a condition of approval that will require BRE to submit an odour mitigation performance report that demonstrates Site improvements for reducing odours and a corresponding reduction in the number of odour complaints. This report will be submitted as part of the application under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) for the vertical landfill expansion.

Species at risk

The MNRF and Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) provided recommendations to prevent wildlife from accessing the site, in particular the “Threatened” Blanding’s turtle which has been observed near the Site. Both MNRF and NPCA recommended that the silt fence at the CSR rail bed should be extended along the entire perimeter of the property. This exclusion fence should be routinely monitored and maintained in good working order throughout the life of the landfill.

BRE, in their responses to MNRF’s and NPCA’s comments, has committed to the placement of a permanent silt fence along the entire perimeter of the Brooks Road Landfill Site property. Section 7.1.6 of the EA report also states the commitment to provide personnel with SAR identification tools, and procedures to follow when a known or suspected SAR is encountered. The MOECC is satisfied with the proponent’s response.

Waste diversion

One of the actions of the Ontario’s Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy (Strategy) is to establish “promotion and education requirements to support public participation in resource recovery”. This action considers the role of waste generators and service providers in improving efforts to drive larger volumes of waste to diversion from landfill, in particular, IC&I waste. During the EA review period, the MOECC inquired about BRE’s initiatives to facilitate, encourage and promote the reduction, reuse and recycling objectives to help drive larger volumes of IC&I waste to diversion. BRE responded that it will work with its customers to encourage diversion at the source of the generated material.

Section 3.2 of EA report mentions that BRE supports Ontario’s Strategy by receiving mainly post diversion, residual waste. The MOECC asked for clarification as to how BRE ensures that only post diversion IC&I waste is accepted at the Site as the IC&I diversion rate in Ontario is approximately 11%. BRE responded that it is not appropriate or reasonable for BRE to develop a diversion plan at the landfill Site given that the volumes of material that could be potentially diverted are minimal and lack an established and financially viable end market.

The ministry is not satisfied with the responses provided by BRE and is considering a condition of approval for the proponent to develop a Waste Diversion Protocol which provides information on the ways that BRE will work with waste generators to promote at-source diversion, in addition to on-site waste segregation protocols to maximize the diversion of IC&I waste including organics. This Protocol would be submitted to the ministry as part of the ECA application for the expanded landfill under the EPA.

Climate change mitigation and adaptation

The proposed vertical landfill expansion, if approved, would give the Brooks Road Landfill Site a total capacity of just over one million cubic metres. Landfills with more than 1.5 million cubic metres of waste disposal volume are required to have a landfill gas management system during site operation and following site closure according to Ontario Regulation 232/98 under the EPA. As the expanded Site will have an approved capacity of less than 1.5 million cubic metres, the requirement for a landfill gas management system does not apply. However, during the Terms of Reference stage, the MOECC requested that BRE review landfill gas emissions and provide commentary on the feasibility of installing a landfill gas collection system at the Site.

Section 5.7.10 of the EA states that a landfill gas collection system is not feasible for the expanded Brooks Road Landfill Site mainly due to noise impacts, increased energy and maintenance requirements, and cost. The MOECC commented that the EA should specifically outline other mitigation measures that will be incorporated in Best Management Practice Plans or SOPs to be implemented at each stage of landfill expansion to reduce and/or offset greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of a landfill gas collection and flare system to reduce methane gas emissions.

BRE responded that best management plans (BMPs) that consider climate change mitigation will be developed by BRE following the approval of the undertaking by the Minister and prior to construction, as it is more appropriate for plans to be finalized as part of the detailed design to ensure that all EA commitments, monitoring requirements, and approval conditions are incorporated. BRE mentioned that one possible item that may be considered, upon approval, is the implementation of an enhanced cover system to provide additional oxidation of any methane that might be produced by the waste, thus preventing emission to the atmosphere. In addition, BRE also indicated that it will continue to monitor landfill gas via the existing landfill gas monitoring network, which consists of six paired gas probes installed at three on-site locations, with the installation of another pair of gas probes adjacent to the leachate treatment facility following commissioning. If a significant change in landfill gas production is identified, BRE stated the commitment to revisit the possibility of implementing additional landfill gas mitigation measures.

The ministry is generally satisfied with the proponent’s response. However to reinforce the proponent’s commitments to develop BMPs to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from the landfill expansion, the ministry is considering a condition of approval which would require BRE to prepare a Climate Change Mitigation Plan which will describe mitigation and monitoring measures for the construction, operation, closure and post-closure of the expanded landfill. The plan will include measures for reducing landfill gas emissions and be submitted to the ministry as part of the ECA application for the expanded landfill.

During the EA comment period, MOECC remarked that BRE’s assessment of the effects that climate change may have on waste management infrastructure was overly general. This assessment would have been better supported by additional technical analyses such as a study of waste pile stability under extreme weather events as side slope gradients will increase. The ministry is considering a condition of approval that will require BRE to conduct a slope stability modelling exercise to determine the appropriate safety factor to be applied to the design of the vertically the expanded landfill to be submitted to the ministry as part of the ECA application for the expanded landfill.

3.3.2 Conclusion

BRE has provided responses to all comments received during the EA comment period. A summary of all comments reviewed and BRE’s responses are located in Tables 1 and 2 of this Review.

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

A second (five-week) public comment period and a recommendation to the Minister about the undertaking described in the EA will follow the publishing of this Ministry Review. If the undertaking is approved by the Minister, conditions specific to the proposed undertaking may be proposed to ensure the environment remains protected. The conditions of approval being considered by the ministry are summarized below in section 4 of this Review.

Summary of the ministry review

The ministry’s analysis of the Brooks Road Landfill Site Vertical Capacity Expansion EA is explained in this Review, and concludes that:

  • The EA meets the purpose of the EAA
  • The EA was prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the EAA
  • The ministry is satisfied with the agency, Indigenous community and public consultation opportunities provided
  • The EA provides sufficient information about the undertaking and its potential impacts for the Minister to make a decision
  • Issues regarding waste diversion, climate change, and odour management can be addressed through conditions of approval for the EA

4.1 Proposed conditions of approval

If an undertaking is approved under the EAA, there are several standard conditions that will be imposed, such as the requirement to conduct and report the results of compliance monitoring during all phases of the undertaking.

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 undertaking 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 EA and the purpose of the EAA:

  • Preparation of an odour mitigation performance report that demonstrates odour management improvements at the Brooks Road Landfill Site and a corresponding reduction in the number of odour complaints to be submitted to the ministry as part of the ECA application for landfill expansion.
  • Development and implementation of a Waste Diversion Protocol which provides information on awareness programs for waste generators and haulers, and on-site waste segregation protocols to maximize the diversion of IC&I waste, including organics to be submitted to the ministry as part of the ECA application for landfill expansion.
  • Development and implementation of a Climate Change Mitigation Plan which will describe mitigation and monitoring measures for the construction, operation, closure and post-closure of the expanded landfill, including measures for reducing landfill gas emissions to be submitted to the ministry as part of the ECA application for the expanded landfill.
  • Assessment of the potential vulnerability to side slope failure at the Brooks Road Landfill Site due to extreme weather events and identification of the appropriate mitigation and contingency measures to address such a failure, to be submitted to the ministry as part of the ECA application for the expanded landfill.

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

What happens now

This 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 EA and/or the Review. At this time, anyone can make a written request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if their environmental concerns have not been considered.

At the end of the Review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR, if the requirements of the EAA have been met, and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the approved ToR, the EA, the ministry Review, the comments submitted during the formal comment periods, and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant. The Minister will make one of the following decisions to:

  • give approval to proceed with the undertaking
  • give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
  • refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire EA to mediation, or refer either part of or the entire EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister makes a decision to approve the EA, approve the EA with conditions, or to refuse approval, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must approve this decision.

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, BRE will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 8 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

  • An amended ECA for the Brooks Road Landfill Site obtained from the MOECC, as per section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act
  • An ECA obtained from the MOECC, as per section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act for any changes to the leachate collection and stormwater system that discharges to surface water
  • An Endangered Species Permit from the MNRF (under the Endangered Species Act) for the management of activities related to SAR
  • A Clearance Letter from the MTCS (under the Heritage Act) to confirm that appropriate archaeological studies and mitigation, if required, have been completed for the undertaking

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

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

The EA Code of Practice identifies a process to address minor and major changes to the undertaking if EA approval is granted. Any proposed change to the undertaking would have to be considered in the context of the EAA and Ontario Regulation 101/07 (Waste Management Projects), in addition to other mandatory EA requirements before any change to the undertaking can be implemented.

Public record locations

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

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st floor
Toronto, Ontario

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

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Hamilton District Office
Ellen Fairclough Building, 9th floor, 119 King Street West
Hamilton, Ontario
L8P 4Y7

Haldimand County Administration Office
45 Munsee Street North
Cayuga, Ontario
N0A 1E0

Cayuga Public Library
28 Cayuga Street North
Cayuga, Ontario
N0A 1E0

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending August 25, 2017 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 Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Brooks Road Landfill Site Vertical Capacity Expansion EA
Attention: Carolyn Lee, 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 of the environmental assessment

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Problem and opportunitiesIdentify an existing problem or opportunity. Purpose of the undertaking: section 6.1(2)(a). Description of and a statement of the rationale for the undertaking: section 6.1(2)(b)(i)The EA should contain a brief explanation of the problem or opportunity that prompted the proposed activity. If a specific undertaking has been identified provide a brief description.

Analysis of the EA

Section 3.1 of the EA describes the proposed undertaking as the vertical expansion of the existing Brooks Road Landfill Site to allow Brooks Road Environmental to continue providing post-diversion, IC&I waste disposal services over a five to seven year planning period. An amendment to the Site’s rate of fill from a daily maximum of 500 tonnes to an annual maximum of 151,000 tonnes is also proposed.

The undertaking proposed is for Brooks Road Environmental to continue operating the landfill from a business as usual perspective. Section 3.2 of the EA contains an explanation of the business opportunity to expand the existing Brooks Road Landfill Site. This opportunity considered the need for IC&I waste disposal capacity in Ontario due to the low diversion rates in this sector, as well as for recovering a portion of the financial capital spent to remediate the landfill.

These requirements have been met.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
AlternativesDescription and statement of the rationale for the alternative methods: section 6.1(2)(b)(ii)“Alternative methods” include a description of different ways of implementing the preferred “alternative to”. A reasonable range of “alternative methods” should be identified and outlined.

Analysis of the EA

Section 5.1 of the EA describes three different ways of implementing the vertical landfill expansion. The three alternative methods developed for the EA only differ slightly in slope, contours, and final height since the footprint of the fill area is proposed to remain the same. The alternatives are:

  • Alternative 1: 33% grade side slopes, crest elevation of 218.1 metres above sea level (MASL), with a peak elevation of 219.7 MASL
  • Alternative 2: 25% grade side slopes, crest elevation of 221.0 MASL, with a peak elevation of 221.5 MASL
  • Alternative 3: 33% grade side slopes, crest elevation of 221.3 MASL, with a 4.0 m wide bench at 210.0 MASL, and a peak elevation of 222.1 MASL

Off-site and on-site leachate treatment options were evaluated in the EA. The on-site treatment option was to construct a biological leachate treatment facility at the Brooks Road Landfill Site. The off-site treatment options were:

  • Alternative 1a: Transport by tank truck to a licensed liquid industrial waste disposal facility
  • Alternative 1b: Pre-treatment (on-site) with transport by tank truck to the municipal waste water treatment plant (WWTP)
  • Alternative 1c: Pre-treatment (on-site) with transport via direct forcemain connection to the municipal sanitary sewer and Cayuga WWTP

A reasonable range of alternative methods were identified and outlined based on the established design requirements.

This requirement has been met.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
AlternativesDescription and statement of the rationale for the “alternatives to”. “Alternative to”: section 6.1(2)(b)(iii)“Alternatives to” represent functionally different ways of addressing the problem or opportunity. A reasonable range of “alternatives to” should be identified and evaluated. The proponent should be able to justify that it has considered a reasonable range of alternatives. The “do nothing” alternative to should be included in the evaluation and will represent the “bench mark” situation.

Analysis of the EA

Brooks Road Environmental proposed in the ToR to focus the EA on vertical landfill expansion as permitted under Section 6.1(3) of the EA Act. The screening of “Alternatives to” the undertaking, including the “do nothing” alternative is described in the approved ToR and in Section 3.3 of the EA.

The main rationale provided for focusing the EA on vertical expansion is that Brooks Road Environmental, as a private proponent, has constraints such as an inability to expropriate land or implement public programs which influence the range of alternatives it may examine to achieve the identified business opportunity.

This requirement was met at the ToR stage.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
EvaluationDescription of the environment: section 6.1(2)(c)(i)

Proponents must consider the broad definition of the environment including the natural, biophysical, social, economic, built and cultural conditions. The EA must provide a description of the existing environmental conditions in the study area. The EA must identify those elements of the environment that may be reasonably expected to be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the proposed undertaking and/or the alternatives.

Analysis of the EA

Brooks Road Environmental established a Site Study Area which consists of the Brooks Road Landfill Site property and a Local Study Area which extends 1km from the Site’s property boundaries.

Section 4 of the EA provides a description of the existing environmental conditions in the Local Study Area. Twelve (12) components of the environment were considered:

  • Atmospheric environment
  • Geology & hydrogeology
  • Surface water resources
  • Terrestrial and aquatic environment
  • Archaeology & cultural heritage
  • Transportation
  • Land use
  • Agriculture/soils & mining
  • Site design & operations
  • Social environment
  • Economic environment
  • Aboriginal communities

This requirement has been met.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
EvaluationDescription of the environment: section 6.1(2)(c)(i)Both positive and negative environmental effects should be discussed. The EA must identify methods and studies used to analyze the potential environmental effects. The methods used are contingent on the type of project. Impact assessment methods and criteria used during the evaluation should be identified. The methods chosen must be clear, traceable and replicable so that interested parties can understand the analysis and logic used throughout the EA.

Analysis of the EA

Section 5.2 of the EA describes the assessment methodology for analyzing the potential environmental effects of each vertical expansion method. The steps in the assessment were to:

  1. Confirm evaluation criteria and indicators/measures
  2. Undertake the net effects analysis
  3. Carry out the comparative evaluation

This requirement has been met.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
EvaluationDescription of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the environmental effects: section 6.1(2)(c)(iii)A description of future commitments, studies and a work plan may be included as part of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy environmental effects for each alternative for the ultimate purpose of comparing them.

Analysis of the EA

Section 5.3 of the EA identifies mitigation measures to remedy the environmental effects for each alternative method. The positive and negative net effects resulting from each alternative method on the twelve components of the environment were determined using the identified evaluation criteria.

This requirement has been met.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
EvaluationEvaluation of advantages and disadvantages to the environment: section 6.1(2)(d)The preferred alternative should be identified through this evaluation.

Analysis of the EA

Section 5.4 of the EA documents the comparative evaluation of the alternative methods and the identification of the preferred alternative. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative method on the environment were identified in the net effects analysis step of the assessment methodology.

Section 5.6 of the EA documents the comparative evaluation of on-site and off-site leachate treatment options using similar environmental criteria for the evaluation of alternative vertical expansion methods.

The advantages and disadvantages of the preferred undertaking are described in Section 5.9 of the EA.

This requirement has been met.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
EvaluationDescription of consultation with interested stakeholders: section 6.1(2)(e)

A description of stakeholder consultation that occurred during the preparation of the EA needs be documented and should include consultation methods used, frequency of consultation, dates that events occurred, target audience, descriptions of key milestones for which stakeholders are providing input, comments received.

The EA must identify any Aboriginal consultation efforts that have been made including methods for identifying potentially interested First Nations, who was consulted, when and how consultation occurred and any comments received from First Nations.

The EA should include outline conflict resolution techniques to resolve issues used by the proponent to resolve outstanding issues with any stakeholders. There must be clear documentation as to how issues and concerns have been addressed.

Analysis of the EA

Section 6.0 of the EA provides a summary of the government review agency, public and Indigenous community consultation undertaken during the preparation of the EA including methods used, dates of consultation and comments received. The Record of Consultation accompanying the EA documents the events that occurred and correspondence exchanged during the EA process. Consultation activities included:

  • Establishing and maintaining a stakeholder and Indigenous community contact list
  • Publishing notices in local newspapers
  • Posting EA documents on the project website
  • Mailing notices to inform the general public of study milestones
  • Hosting teleconference calls with Government Review Team (GRT) agencies
  • Meetings with the Six Nations of the Grand River
  • Providing updates on the EA at the Brooks Road Landfill Site Public Liaison Committee and to Haldimand County Council
  • Responding to letters and email correspondence from the public
  • Conducting two open houses for the general public to obtain input on the evaluation of vertical expansion options and the selection of the preferred option
  • Providing a draft EA for GRT agencies and Indigenous communities to review and comment

Tables 6.1 to 6.4 in Section 6 of the EA summarizes the comments and concerns the proponent received throughout the EA process, including comments on the draft EA report and how they were considered/addressed in the final EA.

This requirement has been met.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Selection processProposed undertaking. Description and statement of the rationale for the undertaking: section 6.1(2)(b)(i)The description of the undertaking should specify what the proponent is seeking approval for under the EAA. The description should include information on the location, attributes, dimensions, emissions, etc. The evaluation process should identify which is the preferred undertaking.

Analysis of the EA

Section 5.7 of the EA describes the preferred undertaking and how the infrastructure and operation of the existing landfill will change with the vertical expansion.

The EA clearly demonstrated why the preferred alternative was selected over the others.

This requirement has been met.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Next steps & additional commitmentsAdditional ToR commitmentsOutline any further commitments made by the proponent in the ToR.

Analysis of the EA

Brooks Road Environmental made additional commitments in the ToR errata letter (dated January 21, 2015) to:

  • Review landfill gas production/emissions and provide commentary on a landfill gas collection system at Brooks Road Landfill
  • Consider potential effects on the environment associated with construction/operation and closure/post-closure
  • Assess leachate treatment alternatives in the EA

Section 5.7.10 of the EA summarizes the results of the methane generation modelling analysis provided in Appendix F. The memo in Appendix F provides the rationale of why the operation of a gas collection and control system is currently not feasible at the Brooks Road Landfill Site.

Section 5 of the EA considers potential effects on the environment associated with the construction/operation, and closure/post-closure of the landfill. Section 5.5 estimates the contaminating lifespan of the expanded landfill post-closure, and compares it with the existing scenario.

Leachate treatment alternatives are assessed in Section 5.6 of the EA.

These commitments have been fulfilled.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Next steps & additional commitmentsAdditional approvalsOutline additional approval requirements. Provide sufficient detail about the nature of the approval.

Analysis of the EA

Section 8 of the EA outlines the regulatory approvals required for the vertical landfill expansion. The main approvals are amendments to the Environmental Compliance Approvals for the Site under the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

This requirement has been met.

Appendix B: Submissions received during the initial comment period

Submissions are available in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

Table 1: Government Review Team comment summary table

Comment #1

Reviewer

Project Officer, Environmental Approvals Branch, MOECC

Summary of comments
Waste diversion

One of the actions of the Ontario’s Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy (February 2017) is to establish “promotion and education requirements to support public participation in resource recovery”. This action considers the role of waste generators and service providers in improving efforts to drive larger volumes of waste to diversion from landfill, especially industrial, commercial, and institutional (IC&I) waste.

Section 3.2 (Purpose) of the EA mentions that since “much of the material received at the Brooks Road Landfill Site (Site) is considered residual waste (i.e., remaining material once recovery/recycling options have been exhausted at-source), the vertical expansion of the Site further supports the Strategy action to divert more waste from disposal, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Please explain how Brooks Road Environmental (BRE) ensures that only post-diversion IC&I waste is accepted at the Site, and describe the activities BRE is carrying out to facilitate, encourage and promote reduction, reuse and recycling objectives to help drive larger volumes of IC&I waste diversion.

Proponent’s response

Diversion at the source of the generated residual material from generators and customers considers both the economic viability of diversion as well as ensuring that there is a viable end market for the diverted material. It is not appropriate or reasonable for Brooks Road Environmental to develop a diversion plan at the site given that the volumes of material that could be potentially diverted are minimal, and lack an established and financially viable end market. Brooks Road Environmental will also work with its customers to continue to encourage diversion at the source of the generated material.

Status

The ministry is considering a condition of approval for the proponent to develop and implement a Waste Diversion Protocol that outlines measures for promoting IC&I waste diversion on-site and off-site.

Comment #2

Reviewer

Project Officer, Environmental Approvals Branch, MOECC

Summary of comments
Odour management, mitigation and monitoring

The future odour conditions at the Site were not modelled in the EA based on the assumption that odour conditions are expected to remain the same, or improve with the implementation of the on-site leachate treatment facility. The rationale that the Site will be receiving the same quantities and types of waste per year thus the odour profile will remain unchanged may not hold true, as BRE is seeking an alteration to the rate at which is waste is received from a daily maximum of 500 tonnes per day to an annual maximum of 151,000 tonnes per year, which could see daily waste receipts of up to 1000 tonnes per day during the spring and summer when people spend more time outdoors. In addition, odour assessments completed to date have been short term assessments which may not reflect the conditions at the Site over long periods of time under varying atmospheric conditions.

To mitigate odour impacts, the EA states a commitment to implement an Odour Best Management Plan which would involve the continuation and modification of odour control measures, and the development of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for handling, investigating, and mitigating odour complaints. It is unclear if the Odour Best Management Plan or SOP will include the items suggested by the Hamilton District Office Senior Environmental Officer: restrictions to operating in conditions that may have the potential to impact sensitive receptors; limiting waste types; detailed odour inspections; and, an odour contingency plan. In addition, as BRE has noted that odour complaints have typically occurred in the late evening or early morning hours with low to no winds and during temperature inversions—conditions which could result in the poor dispersion of fugitive odours, the monitoring of real-time meteorological data to allow for the proactive implementation of odour control measures is strongly recommended.

Proponent’s response

The Odour Best Management Practice (BMP) Plan will incorporate all items suggested by the Hamilton District Office Senior Environmental Officer.

In addition to the current monitoring conducted by Brooks Road Environmental personnel and third party consultants, increased monitoring by Brooks Road Environmental personnel will occur when weather predictions for Cayuga show meteorological conditions that have historically been tied to odour complaints and appropriate odour mitigation strategies will be implemented. Brooks Road Environmental has also prepared and submitted a Fugitive Odour Best Management Practices Plan (FOBMPP) to the MOECC Hamilton District Office via email on March 31, 2017 which has been implemented by Brooks Road Environmental personnel to help identify and mitigate potential off-Site odours.

Status

To confirm that the proponent is able to manage fugitive landfill odours, the ministry is considering a condition of approval that will require BRE to submit an odour mitigation performance report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the landfill site’s odour management program and a decline in the number of odour complaints, that will be submitted as part of the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application for the vertical landfill expansion.

Comment #3

Reviewer

Project Officer, Environmental Approvals Branch, MOECC

Summary of comments
Climate Change

Ontario’s Waste-Free Strategy to achieve a circular economy states a goal to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector. Proposed waste management undertakings should consider the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Section 5.8.2.2 (Climate Change Considerations) indicates that the Site receives primarily post diversion IC&I waste and very little waste containing organics, and 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. However, there appears to be landfill gas generating fractions of waste that are being accepted at the Site including sewage sludge, food waste, yard waste, and putrescible construction and demolition materials such as shingles. Table 2 of Appendix F (Predicted Methane Generation Memorandum) shows that approximately 70% of the total historical material received at the Site from 2009 to 2016 was categorized as putrescible waste. The EA also mentions that the estimated peak methane emissions from the Site in 2024 will be approximately 809 tonnes (roughly equivalent to 20,224 tonnes CO2e). Although the predicted methane generation from the Site may be slightly lower than that of a municipal landfill of this size, the impacts on climate change for the continued operation of the Site and measures to reduce these impacts should be identified in the EA.

Section 5.8.2.2 presents some mitigation measures and best management practices (BMP) to reduce the undertaking’s effect on climate, but the EA should provide more specific commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from landfill expansion. The EA states that mitigation measures and BMPs will be determined and implemented at the onset of each stage of the landfill, and that possible measures for the four stages (construction, operation, closure, and post-closure) of the landfill include:

  • Implement and enforce an anti-idling policy for all vehicles and machinery on site during the construction stage
  • Try to use materials that have a lower carbon footprint and a long lifespan
  • Enforce an anti-idling policy for all vehicles on site during the operation stage
  • Reduce the size of the uncovered/working area
  • Capping the landfill
  • Plant additional vegetation to create a carbon sink

Appendix F of the EA states that a landfill gas collection system is not feasible for the expanded Brooks Road Landfill mainly due to noise impacts, increased energy and maintenance requirements, and cost. In the absence of a landfill gas collection and flare system to reduce methane emissions, the EA should specifically outline other mitigation measures that will be incorporated in Best Management Practice Plans or SOPs, and implemented at each stage of landfill expansion to reduce and/or offset greenhouse gas emissions.

Table 5.23 (Estimated Sensitivity of the Undertaking to Potential Climate Change Effects) and Table 5.24 (Potential Severity of Climate Impacts on Components of the Waste Management Infrastructure) in Section 5.8.2.2 of the EA show prescribed impacts ratings of “nil” or “low”. It is unclear how these ratings were determined as generic explanations were provided. The main rationale accompanying these ratings is that landfill operations and landfill components have been implemented successfully in areas with varying climate/weather conditions.

Proponent’s response

Climate change, as it may affect or be affected by the Proposed Undertaking, was considered as part of the Brooks Road Landfill Site Vertical Capacity Expansion EA. As noted, based on the GHG modeling that has been conducted, the low level of methane generation at the Brooks Road Landfill and the negative energy and economic factors associated with a gas collection and control system, it has been demonstrated that the operation of a landfill gas collection system is not feasible. Notwithstanding this, possible mitigation measures and BMPs to reduce the Undertaking’s effect on the environment are identified in the EA Report. As noted in Section 7.2 of the EA Report, BMP Plans will be developed by Brooks Road following the approval of the undertaking by the Minister and prior to construction. The BMPs will include a description of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures for the relevant disciplines. It is more appropriate for these BMP Plans to be finalized as part of the detailed design/ECA stage to ensure that all of the EA commitments, monitoring requirements, and approval conditions are incorporated. As noted in Section 6.13, consultation activities with stakeholders (i.e., PLC, Haldimand County, agencies, Aboriginal communities, and the public) will also be associated with the ECA amendment(s) and other regulatory approvals required at the Site, including BMP Plan finalization. One possible item that may be considered, upon approval, is the implementation of an enhanced cover system to provide additional oxidation of any methane that might be produced by the waste, thus preventing emission to the atmosphere.

In addition, as documented in Section 7.1.1, Brooks Road will continue to monitor landfill gas via the existing landfill gas monitoring network, consisting of six gas probes (nested) installed in three on-Site locations (two gas probes per nest), with the addition of pair of gas probes that will be installed adjacent to the leachate treatment facility following commissioning. Landfill gas monitoring activities are to be conducted monthly from December 1 to April 30 and on a quarterly basis from May through November. If a significant change in landfill gas production was identified, Brooks Road would revisit the possibility of implementing additional landfill gas mitigation measures.

It is noted that the Site has shown in recent history that it has reduced the amount of organic material accepted at the Site, which Brooks Road expects to continue, particularly as it relates to the Ontario Government’s Food and Organic Waste Action Plan, which will focus on the reduction and possible ban of organics in landfills in Ontario (page 12-13, Strategy for a Waste Free Ontario, Building the Circular Economy, February 2017).

An overview of historical climate trends within the Site’s regional context are presented in Section 5.8.2.2. This review concluded that there are landfills in Ontario that operate under significantly higher or lower climate parameters (e.g. mean and extreme temperatures, mean annual precipitation, etc.). With this context in mind, Tables 5.23 and 5.24 were completed. Rationale for the ratings applied is provided in Tables 5.23 and 5.24 and further rationale is provided in the paragraphs following these tables.

Status

To reinforce the proponent’s commitments to develop BMPs to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from the landfill expansion, the ministry is considering condition of approval which will require Brooks Road Environmental to prepare a Climate Change Mitigation Plan that describes mitigation and monitoring measures for all phases of landfill expansion including measures for reducing landfill gas emissions from the expanded landfill.

The provision of specific examples and technical analyses in the EA would have helped support the impact ratings assigned in the determination of the undertaking’s sensitivity to potential climate change effects.

With respect to the landfill’s ability to withstand the effects of climate change, the ministry is also considering a condition of approval that will require BRE to assess the expanded landfill Site’s vulnerability to side slope failure due to extreme weather events.

Comment #4

Reviewer

Project Officer, Environmental Approvals Branch, MOECC

Summary of comments
Leachate management

GHD’s response to Grand River Conservation Authority’s (GRCA) request for additional leachate treatment information related to the vertical expansion to support the GRCA permit in Comment #5 of Table 6.2 (Summary of Agency Comments Received During Review of the Draft EA Report), states that the leachate treatment facility and process has been modified as a part of the current EA process. The ministry is of the understanding that the leachate treatment facility approved under Industrial Sewage Works Environmental Compliance Approval number 1907-99NSF2 will service the vertically expanded landfill. Please clarify and identify if there will be any changes to the system. Also please indicate the design life of the leachate system and confirm whether it will continue to operate during the landfill post-closure period. The ministry also understands that no additional GRCA permits will be required for the vertical landfill expansion as Conservation Authority permits were not listed in Section 8.0 (Approvals Required for the Undertaking).

Proponent’s response

The leachate treatment facility approved under Industrial Sewage Works ECA number 1907-99NSF2 and currently being implemented at the Site will service the vertically expanded landfill. Since there are no significant changes expected to the quantity or quality of leachate that require treatment as a result of the proposed vertical expansion, and since the leachate treatment facility has been sized to accommodate existing leachate volumes as well as future volumes associated with the expansion, no changes are anticipated to be required to the approved on-Site leachate system currently being established.

The design life of the leachate treatment system capital works is approximately 30 to 50 years.

Status

The ministry acknowledges that there will be no changes to the approved on-Site leachate system currently being commissioned and that the system is designed to continue operating after landfill closure.

The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Comment #5

Reviewer

Project Officer, Environmental Approvals Branch, MOECC

Summary of comments
Commitments and monitoring

Section 7.2 (Development of Best Management Practice Plans) of the EA mentions the development of Best Management Practice Plans which will be used to demonstrate how EA commitments, monitoring requirements and conditions of approval have been addressed. Please note that these plans are not a substitute for a compliance monitoring framework/plan which includes information on how the proponent will report to the ministry about EA compliance.

The commitment to pave the future on-site road was not included in Table 7.4 (Recommendations and Commitments). As mentioned by the ministry’s Air Quality Analyst, the evaluation of the alternative expansion methods was based on the assumption that the on-site road would be paved; therefore road paving is imperative in conjunction with other mitigation strategies for controlling fugitive dust emissions from landfill operations.

Table 7.4 does not provide a firm commitment to implement best management practices (BMPs) for “Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment” and “Site Design & Operations” categories. The language used suggests that the BMPs listed in the table “may” be included in plans and reports. In addition the EA mentions that several mitigation measures for aesthetic impacts (e.g. noise, litter, visual) as well as contingency plans will be implemented “if” or “as” required. Please clarify how BRE will determine whether barriers or berms to mitigate aesthetic impacts from the expanded Site are required.

Although there are no major airports within the EA Local Study Area, public comments indicate that there are local airstrips in close proximity to the landfill. In addition, the EA notes that turkey vultures and gulls are known to frequent the landfill. Table 7.4 should include the commitment to implement operational measures to deter avian wildlife use of the landfill site in the “Transportation” category.

Table 7.4 did not include climate change mitigation and adaptation measures mentioned in Section 5.8.2.2 of the EA. Please outline concrete commitments for climate change mitigation and adaptation during the construction, operation, closure, and post-closure phases of the project.

Proponent’s response

It is noted that BMP Plans are not a substitute for a compliance monitoring framework/plan which includes information on how the proponent will report to the ministry about EA compliance. As noted in Section 7.3, if the proposed undertaking is approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change under the EA Act, then Brooks Road Environmental will prepare an EA Compliance Monitoring Program, which will include all of the commitments outlined in Table 7.4, as well as any EA Act conditions of approval.

Omission of the commitment to pave the future on-site road from Table 7.4 was an oversight on our part. Brooks Road Environmental is committed to paving the on-site road as part of the Site design for the vertical expansion. This was considered as a mitigation measure through design, as noted in Table 5.16, and is essential to ensuring on-Site operations remain in compliance with Ministry standards.

Table 7.4 commits to implementing a Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment BMP Plan and provides examples of BMPs that may be included. Similarly, Table 7.4 also commits to including BMPs in the “Amended Site D&O Report for the Amended ECA” and provides examples of the BMPs that could be included (see page 7-14) in the Amended Site D&O Plan, such as vegetating the berm on the western Site boundary and/or on-Site plantings, as required, to attenuate visual and noise impacts. As noted in Section 7.2 of the EA Report, BMP Plans will be developed by Brooks Road Environmental following the approval of the undertaking by the Minister and prior to construction. The BMPs will include a description of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures for the relevant disciplines. It is more appropriate for these BMP Plans to be finalized as part of the detailed design/ECA stage to ensure that all of the EA commitments, monitoring requirements, and approval conditions are incorporated. As noted in Section 6.13, consultation activities with stakeholders (i.e. PLC, Haldimand County, agencies, Aboriginal communities, and the public) will also be associated with the ECA amendment(s) and other regulatory approvals required at the Site, including BMP Plan finalization. The determination as to whether barriers or berms to mitigate aesthetic impacts from the expanded Site are required will be made through consultation with the community.

The primary mitigation measure to control avian wildlife at the Site is installation of daily cover, at a thickness of 150 mm, at the end of each working day. If avian wildlife persists, the daily cover thickness is increased until avian wildlife is deterred. In areas of the landfill that have not been active for 6 months, interim cover is installed at a thickness of 300 mm. This approach has proven effective historically; the Site does not currently have an issue with avian wildlife. Should avian wildlife not be deterred through the installation of daily/interim cover, alternative options, such as putrescible waste reduction and application for a scare permit, will be explored.

Possible mitigation measures and BMPs to reduce the Undertaking’s effect on the environment are identified in Section 5.8.2 of the EA Report. As noted in Section 7.2 of the EA Report, BMP Plans will be developed by Brooks Road Environmental following the approval of the undertaking by the Minister and prior to construction. The BMPs will include a description of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures for the relevant disciplines, which will incorporate aspects of climate change adaptation, as noted in Section 5.8.2.2. It is more appropriate for these BMP Plans to be finalized as part of the detailed design/ECA stage to ensure that all of the EA commitments, monitoring requirements, and approval conditions are incorporated. As noted in Section 6.13, consultation activities with stakeholders (i.e. PLC, Haldimand County, agencies, Aboriginal communities, and the public) will also be associated with the ECA amendment(s) and other regulatory approvals required at the Site, including BMP Plan finalization. In addition, with respect to adaptation, as noted in Section 5.8.2.2 of the EA Report, the stage with the greatest vulnerability (e.g. most likely to be impacted by climate change) is the stage that occurs over a long period of time, which is post-closure. We identified adaptation measures aimed at strengthening and increasing the resilience of the landfill cover and leachate management system. Examples were provided in Section 5.8.2.2 of the EA Report, but we noted that the list provided was by no means comprehensive and that additional adaptation measures would be considered as part of the Closure Plan for the Site, which, under Section 31 of O. Reg. 232/98 is required to be developed 2 years before the anticipated closure date or when 90 percent of the waste disposal volume is reached. In addition to detailing the activities for post-closure care the Closure Report will state the commitments to climate change adaptation and how they will be implemented. Brooks Road Environmental would accept a condition of EA approval that would require the proponent to investigate emerging technologies and update climate projections during the development of the adaptation measures in the Closure Report.

Status

The ministry is generally satisfied with the response.

As EA commitments are typically mitigation and monitoring measures to reduce the effects of the undertaking on the environment, they must be clearly identified in the EA, so that they can be accurately captured in the Environmental management plans developed for project implementation.

Comment #6

Reviewer

Senior Waste Engineer, Environmental Approvals Branch, MOECC

Summary of comments
Comments

2.1 Two main concerns, among other minor ones were noted during the review of the draft EA document/report as:

  1. the anticipated maximum daily fill rate of 1000 tonnes during peak season
  2. the proposed final contours (i.e. 22 metres) which brings the completed Site well above the surrounding landforms

It was suggested that statements/information be included in the EA documents/report (report) which highlights the concerns noted above and the mitigation measures taken, and to provide comments from the appropriate stakeholders in respect of the above concerns.

In respect of Item 2.l(a) above, the final EA report included estimated anticipated daily fill rates as varying from zero to a maximum of 1,000 tonnes, to achieve the proposed annual fill rate of 151,000 tonnes, and considered the impacts (e.g. traffic, dust, litter, odour, etc.) caused by the maximum rate of fill. An assessment of the effect of the maximum peak traffic flow was conducted and included in the Report. It is understood the Ministry of Transportation who had jurisdiction over traffic effects is satisfied with the results of the assessment and concluded that no improvement is required on the local roads. Other impacts such as dust, litter and noise were considered and the proponent reported these nuisance impacts will be addressed through general business management practices.

In respect of Item 2.l(b) above, the EA document reported that the landfill is adequately screened by existing vegetation to the north, east and south sides of the Site. It reported further that on the west side which will be most visible to users and/ or residents on Brooks Road, will have a berm constructed along that side to 4 m in height with additional 2 m of vegetation on top to screen the Site in this direction. The report concluded that based on Site operations and the lack of current surrounding developments and dwelling, (nearest residential dwelling being approximately 232 m northwest of the Site), the landfill is adequately screened, and committed to review additional visual screening of the Site, as required, based on Site operations and surrounding developments. Furthermore, the proponent made presentation to the Haldimand County which displayed, and answered questions regarding the Site design and settings. An email of March 10, 2017 from the Haldimand County confirmed that there is no regulatory height restriction for the type of use (landfilling) within the area. I suggest the proponent should ensure that adequate screening of the Site, especially on the west side to minimize or prevent visual and any other nuisance impacts as a result of the increased height of the Site.

The broad scope of the project considered in the EA, reasonably provided information, as previously commented on the draft EA report, and covered the requirements for the evaluation of the waste management facility, and addressed or proposed to address in the application for Environmental Compliance Approval under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), impacts that may be associated with the proposal. I find that the EA reasonably covered the scope of work provided in the approved ToR.

Proponent’s response

As noted in your comment and in the EA Report, the landfill is adequately screened by existing vegetation to the north, east and south sides of the Site. The implementation of vegetation on the berm on the western boundary of the Site and/or on-Site plantings, as required based on consultation with the community, will attenuate visual and noise impacts.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with BRE’s commitment to review additional visual screening needs for the Site in consultation with the community.

Comment #7

Reviewer

Senior Waste Engineer, Environmental Approvals Branch, MOECC

Summary of comments
Other provincial approval requirements

3.1(a) It is understood that the application for approval of the proposed vertical expansion of the Site under the EPA, will consider all applicable legislative requirements, the Ministry’s policies, standards and guidelines, such as the Reasonable Use Policy (Guideline B-7), Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO), etc., for the effective groundwater and surface water protection, as appropriate to the geologic conditions, and provision will be made for adequate buffer/contaminant attenuation zone. As well, the EPA application should address all impacts associated with the operation and post-closure of the site, including but not limited to nuisance control and management programs, particularly odour, dust, litter, visual impacts, vector/vermin, etc., and contingencies.

(b) In addition to the requirements noted in paragraph 3.1(a) above, it is understood that the EPA application will include, a financial assurance evaluation to confirm there is adequate amount to be posted with the Ministry to pay for the compliance with and the performance of any required action/condition in the Approval, as necessary.

Proponent’s response

As noted in Section 8.1 of the EA Report, an application to amend the existing ECA for the Site will need to be submitted to the MOECC for approval. Changes to the design and operations of the landfill required as a result of the Preferred Alternative will be documented in an update to the existing Design and Operations (D&O) Report for the Site. Part of amending the ECA under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) will consider all applicable legislative requirements, the Ministry’s policies, standards and guidelines for effective groundwater and surface water protection and provision will be made for adequate buffer/ contaminant attenuation zone. As well, the EPA application will address all impacts associated with the operation and post-closure of the site, including but not limited to nuisance control and management programs, particularly odour, dust, litter, visual impacts, vector/vermin, etc., and contingencies. The EPA application will also include an update to the existing financial assurance calculations.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #8

Reviewer

Senior Waste Engineer, Environmental Approvals Branch, MOECC

Summary of comments
Landfill gas

Is the proposed expansion defined by volume or tonnage? On page 2 [of Appendix F], it says the proposed expansion is 421,000 tonnes, and the density is assumed to be 1 tonne per cubic metre. How was the density determined? Normally the waste density is around 0.7 tonnes per cubic. For total tonnage of 1,045,065 (421,000 + 624,065) tonnes, using the density of 0.7 tonnes per cubic metre, the total volume is about 1.49 million cubic metres, which is very close to the trigger capacity of 1.5 million cubic metres in O. Reg. 232/98 for mandatory landfill gas collection.

The annual cost for operation of the gas collection and control system (page 4 and Tables 13 and 14) seems over-estimated. For comparison, the total annual operation and maintenance cost for the gas control system for another much larger landfill is about $70,000 per year.

Overall I think the methane calculation is reasonable but the economic impacts should be reconsidered. In addition to the over-estimated annual costs, they may use shorter term period (e.g. 25 or 20 years, instead of 30 years), thus the annual average methane emission would be higher.

Proponent’s response

As noted in Section 1.4, the vertical capacity expansion proposed under this EA is defined by volume and is for approximately 421,000 m3 of additional capacity (including waste and daily/final cover) over a five to seven year planning period. It should be noted that a volumetric calculation, using a (potential) vertical expansion of 4:1 slope to show total airspace and subtracting the currently approved capacity, was undertaken to arrive at 421,000 m3. Assuming a density of 1 tonne per cubic metre of air space consumed for the landfill waste, there is potential capacity for 421,000 tonnes. The Site primarily accepts construction and demolition waste and contaminated soil. The primary waste types accepted at the Site is not anticipated to significantly change. As such, the Site-specific compacted waste density of 1 tonne per cubic meter is appropriate.

O. Reg. 232/98 requires the mandatory collection of landfill gas for sites with a waste capacity greater than 1.5 million m3. Given that the total expanded capacity of the landfill will be 1,045,065 m3, gas collection is not required. Further, given that the anticipated types of waste to be accepted will consist primarily of non hazardous IC&I wastes, there will be insufficient landfill gas produced to warrant collection. To confirm the above, methane generation modelling analysis was completed for the Brooks Road Landfill and the proposed vertical capacity expansion and documented in a memo (Appendix F to the EA Report). As noted in Tables 13 and 14 in Appendix F, cost assumptions and recommendations were referenced from the EPA Air Pollution Cost Control Manual, Sixth Edition (January 2002).

A 30-year timeframe was selected because this is consistent with the lifespan of the equipment, generally. Gas extraction systems require ongoing maintenance but the physical infrastructure can last for this timeframe, in our experience. With respect to operating costs, labour costs have been included here to monitor and balance the landfill gas system, which is generally specialized labour, as well as including maintenance labour. This is the labour effort expected to be required to operate the system safety and with appropriate regular monitoring and adjustment of the wellfield.

Status

The ministry finds the conclusion that landfill gas collection is not required for the expanded Brooks Road Landfill Site acceptable; however, the cost for the landfill gas system operation in the assessment in Appendix F appears to be overestimated. The proponent should use data from similar landfill sites to get a more reasonable calculation and estimation of the benefit of a landfill gas collection system when revisiting the possibility of implementing additional landfill gas mitigation measures.

Comment #9

Reviewer

Senior Wastewater Engineer, Environmental Approvals Branch, MOECC

Summary of comments
Stormwater and leachate

Brooks Road Environmental (BRE) concludes that there are no significant changes from runoff peak rates or volumes as a result of the proposed vertical expansion of the landfill because the drainage area will not change. There will therefore be no change to the current approved stormwater management pond which is under construction to handle quality and quantity control. However, a few adjustments to site grading and alignment of perimeter ditches are anticipated.

According to the report, no surface water runoff will come into contact with the waste that has been disposed of in the landfill. Perimeter ditches around the outside of the landfill footprint will prevent contact between water runoff and the content of the landfill.

Any rain water that infiltrates directly through the cap of the landfill will be captured by the leachate collection system and treated.

The report concludes that there are no significant changes expected to the quantity and the quality of leachate as a result of the proposed expansion of the landfill. As a consequence, it is expected that the average flow and peak flow of leachate will remain at 30 cubic meters per day and 60 cubic meters per day respectively as documented in ECA #6869-9EAT28. Therefore, no change is proposed to the leachate treatment system approved under ECA #6869-9EAT28.

The approved leachate treatment system (onsite full biological treatment with discharge to the natural environment, currently under construction) was identified as the preferred alternative among four alternatives. The 3 other alternatives are:

  • “Transport of leachate by truck to an offsite wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)”
  • “Onsite pre-treatment of leachate and transport of effluent by truck to an offsite WWTP
  • “Onsite pre-treatment and transport by forcemain to an offsite WWTP

Any deviation from the approved stormwater management and leachate treatment sewage works will require an amendment of the ECA under OWRA. I have no more comments.

Proponent’s response

Should any deviation from the approved stormwater management and leachate treatment system works be required, an amendment of the ECA under the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) will be completed.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #10

Reviewer

Senior Noise Engineer, Environmental Approvals Branch, MOECC

Summary of comments
Noise

I have no further comments for the EA.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

Status

N/A

Comment #11

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments
Air quality impacts

Executive Summary, Page E-9: Air quality property boundary maximum exposure is given as 61.01 µg/m3 however, no averaging time is indicated. It is not clear if this is a 24-hour concentration.

Proponent’s response

This is a 24-hour concentration.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #12

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

Section 4.3.1.1, Page 4-14, Table 4.2: In this table, annual average PM2.5 concentrations are compared against 24-hour criteria. This is inappropriate. Annual data should not be compared to 24-hour criteria or standards. In order to properly assess background concentrations and likelihood of exceedance, 24-hour data must be compared to the AAQC and CAAQS referenced. This summary does not provide information on how often during the year the 24-hour criteria were exceeded. This table and the pertaining discussion should be revised accordingly.

Proponent’s response

The data provided in Table 4.2 is the daily averages for each year. Therefore, this is 24 hour data being compared to 24 hour criteria.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #13

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

Section 4.3.1.1, Page 4-12/4-13: GHD has proposed to focus on total suspended particulate, PM10 and PM2.5, however, background data are only presented for PM2.5. Predicted worst case maximum off-site concentrations show TSP and PM10 fractions are above their AAQC. Monitoring data for PM10 and TSP should be included and background data should be accounted for, particularly as any cumulative effects from background concentrations could cause worst case off-site concentrations to rise even further above the AAQC.

Proponent’s response

The Hamilton West Station that was used for this assessment only provides data for PM2.5. The location of this station in relation to the site is not ideal, and using a station at an even greater distance would not be appropriate. Therefore there is no appropriate PM10 or TSP available.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #14

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

Section 5.3.1.1, Page 5-37: Evaluation of alternatives is based on the assumption that the on-site road should be paved. Given that the predicted impacts to particulate concentrations are above respective AAQC, road paving is imperative and other mitigation strategies should be considered and detailed. It is mentioned that a Fugitive Dust Plan will be developed. Monitoring should be considered by the facility in order to demonstrate that mitigation measures are effective.

Proponent’s response

As noted in Section 7.3, if the proposed undertaking is approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change under the EA Act, then Brooks Road Environmental will prepare an EA Compliance Monitoring Program, which will include all of the commitments outlined in Table 7.4, as well as any EA Act conditions of approval.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #15

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

Section Page 5-37: It is not clear if the predicted worse case particulate concentrations are over 24-hour averaging times. The averaging time should be clearly specified. Predicted worse case particulate concentrations under worst case conditions (50 trucks per day) are above the AAQC for TSP and PM10. This would indicate a need for monitoring as suggested above. Even under normal operating conditions of 25 trucks per day, predicted off-site concentrations of PM10 are 65% of the AAQC.

Proponent’s response

The averaging periods are over 24-hour averaging periods.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #16

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

Section 4.3.1.1, Page 4-12, MOECC Air Monitoring Data: The Environmental Assessment Report indicates that the West Hamilton air monitoring station is located on Hamilton Mountain, which is incorrect. The location is in the lower part of the city on Main Street West at Highway 403 (http://airqualityontario.com/history/station.php?stationid=29118).

Proponent’s response

This was a typo. The corrected sentence is as follows: The West Hamilton station is located on Main Street West at Highway 403 and is expected to be influenced by the industry within the City of Hamilton.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #17

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

Section 4.3.1.1, Page 4-13, MOECC Air Monitoring Data: The West Hamilton air monitoring station is referred to as a meteorological station, which is not accurate. This station does not contain any meteorological equipment or report meteorological data.

Proponent’s response

This was a typo. The corrected sentence is as follows: Based on the information from the West Hamilton station it is expected that the existing ambient particulate matter concentration at the site is negligible.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #18

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

Brooks Road Environmental states that GHD has not identified any odour off-site. However, Section 4.0 of the EA outlines 38 odour complaints received from 2012 to 2016. Although the sources of the odours were not identified, primary odour sources were identified on the landfill site. While Brooks Road Landfill is making improvements to the leachate treatment system to reduce the potential for odours, should future complaints continue to be received, Brooks Road Environmental should commit to undertake additional odour monitoring.

Proponent’s response

Should future complaints continue to be received, Brooks Road Environmental will undertake additional odour monitoring.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response and proposes a condition of approval that will require BRE to prepare an odour mitigation performance report to be submitted to the ministry as part of its ECA application.

Comment #19

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

The theoretical landfill gas generation rate calculation/ model should be provided, along with a reference to the source where the model/ calculation method was obtained.

Proponent’s response

The theoretical landfill gas generation rate calculation/ model has been provided to the MOECC.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #20

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

What are these [landfill gas] probes and are they able to sample for air quality data?

Proponent’s response

The probes at the landfill are not designed for air quality samples. The probes are solely for the purpose of monitoring migration of subsurface landfill gas and are not indicative of emissions, but rather are utilized to ensure that combustible gases are not migrating from the landfill.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #21

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

Any monitoring program should be developed in consultation with and approved by MOECC, in order to ensure that the monitoring frequency and duration is appropriate and that sampling and analysis methods are in accordance with the Ministry’s Operations Manual for Air Quality Monitoring in Ontario. This includes monitoring of H2S or any other air contaminant, such as particulate matter or organics.

Proponent’s response

Brooks Road Environmental will consult the MOECC for air monitoring programs.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #22

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

The EA states that MOECC Hamilton West station has been used to obtain background PM2.5 data (different from Hamilton Mountain). GHD must be consistent and clarify which station has been used.

Proponent’s response

The Hamilton West station has been used.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #23

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

The additional burden of the landfill operations must be considered in addition to the existing background concentrations, such that the cumulative effect is assessed.

Proponent’s response

Cumulative effects have been previously assessed. Please see Page 5-148, Section 5.8.1 of the EA Report.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #24

Reviewer

Air Quality Analyst, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

The statement that “if it can be shown that TSP meets the standards, then smaller particle sizes (PM10 and PM2.5) will also be in compliance with the applicable standards” is not always the case, and should not be interpreted as such. PM10 and PM2.5 have more stringent standards/guidelines and are intended to be protective of human health.

Proponent’s response

This comment has been previously addressed, PM2.5 and PM10 have been assessed in addition to TSP.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #25

Reviewer

Hydrogeologist, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments
Groundwater

The purpose of the review was to determine whether previously raised issues on the draft EA report’s treatment of potential groundwater impacts had been addressed satisfactorily.

  1. In section 7.1.3, it is indicated that the existing monitoring network is shown on Figure 4.9. This figure does not show the location of the proposed landfill gas probe pair as suggested in section 7.1.1. According to 7.1.1, the proposed landfill gas probe is to be installed adjacent to a leachate treatment facility. According to Table 7.2 – Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Program, hydraulic monitoring (water level) is proposed to occur at MW2C-01 and this well is not part of a chemical testing program.

    In the 2014 annual monitoring report (2014 Operations and Monitoring Report, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, April 2015), it was then suggested that the water levels at MW2C-01 are not representative of the shallow overburden unit water levels. Based on this, we previously commented that there is no reasonable use of MW2C-01 and recommend that this monitor be excluded from the hydraulic monitoring and chemical testing program.

    The consultant should provide a rationale for the continued inclusion of this well for hydraulic monitoring. With respect to landfill gas monitoring, 7.1.1 indicates that landfill gas monitoring will occur at all existing landfill gas probes in addition to the proposed new location. The existing gas probes were flooded with water in 2013 and questions about the physical integrity of the gas probes and their locations with respect to surface water impacts were raised. Additional clarification as to the status of the existing gas probes as well as their physical integrity should be provided.

  2. No further geologic or hydrogeologic characterization is warranted.
  3. Previously requested geologic cross sections were provided as figures 4.10 and 4.11.
  4. The groundwater quality of the contact overburden/bedrock aquifer is unlikely to be influenced by the vertical expansion given that the landfill is engineered and equipped with a leachate collection system.
Proponent’s response

Section 7.1.3 refers to groundwater monitoring network only and Figure 4.9 referenced in this section provides existing conditions only. As such, it is appropriate that the proposed landfill gas probe not be shown on a geology and hydrogeology existing conditions figure.

Based on further review of the monitoring program, GHD concurs with the MOECC that monitoring well MW2C-01 is not required for the groundwater sampling or hydraulic monitoring program. On this basis it is recommended that MW2C-01 be removed from the monitoring program and properly abandoned.

Due to the low permeability and tightness characteristics of the surrounding clay soils, it is not unusual that the landfill gas probes are flooded. As the subsurface stratigraphy is consistent throughout the Site, relocation of the probes is not expected to result in the landfill gas probes not being flooded. The physical integrity of the landfill gas probes is conducted through visual observation of the above ground portion of the probes and measurements of the bottom of probe elevation to ensure adequate screen is available for monitoring purposes. The physical integrity of the landfill gas probes will continue to be inspected and any gas probes that are deemed to be unserviceable will be abandoned and replaced.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #26

Reviewer

Hydrogeologist, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

Cross-sections [in Appendix E-4, Section 3.3] will be of benefit to the reviewer in the assessment of potential impacts to the bedrock aquifer and/or off site groundwater receptors if they are detailed enough (see below) and accompanied by a scaled site plan, in plan view, indicating the locations of groundwater and landfill gas monitoring wells, as well as monitoring well logs.

As a point of clarification, the cross-sections should clearly identify the geological units and their thicknesses (elevations), as is stated in the Proposed Action/Solution section, as well as the ground surface elevations, the monitoring well locations (lateral and vertical positioning, and screened intervals), the groundwater elevations and flow directions, as well as the location(s)/ elevations of waste and waste cells.

Proponent’s response

The geologic cross section locations are shown on a site plan which also illustrates the locations of all monitoring wells. These figures are provided as Figures 1–3 in the attached Appendix to this comment response table.

The cross sections illustrate the geologic units and the variable thickness of these units across the cross-sectional area via the scaled elevations presented on the sides of each cross-section.

Ground surface elevations are also illustrated on the cross-sections, as requested.

The cross-sections also illustrate the locations and depths of the waste cells, monitoring wells and well screen intervals. Cross-sections have been updated to include the static water levels. Where possible, groundwater flow direction has also been included.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #27

Reviewer

Hydrogeologist, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments

[EA Section 7.1.3] doesn't specifically mention the inclusion of groundwater sampling protocols or the inclusion of a scaled site plan, in plan view, indicating the locations of the groundwater and landfill gas monitoring locations. These should be provided.

Proponent’s response

A scaled site plan showing all monitoring locations is included in the proposed monitoring program and the groundwater sampling protocols is included as Figure 4 in the attached Appendix to this comment response table, as requested.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #28

Reviewer

Surface Water Specialist, Technical Support Section, West Central Region, MOECC

Summary of comments
Surface water

The purpose of the review was to determine whether previously raised issues on the draft EA report’s treatment of potential impacts to surface water had been addressed satisfactorily.

Generally, staff are satisfied that previously raised concerns have been adequately addressed. We note the following that would be appropriately addressed as part of the ECA amendment process:

  1. Any changes to the design and operations of the landfill as a result of the Preferred Alternative will require amendments to the ECA.
  2. The current surface water monitoring program for all surface water stations (SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4, SW5, SW6, SW7 and SW8) is required to be updated in the ECA.

Accordingly, staff are satisfied with the documentation and expect the approval process for the existing ECA to ensure that the surface water monitoring program is carried out as described in section 7 of the EA report dated February 2017, and best efforts to sample after storm events are documented and submitted with annual monitoring reports..

Proponent’s response

The current surface water monitoring program for all surface water stations (SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4, SW5, SW6, SW7 and SW8) will be updated in the ECA for the Waste Disposal Site.

The surface water monitoring program as described in Table 7.2 in the EA Report will be carried out for the vertical capacity expansion and further detailed as part of amending the ECA under the Environmental Protection Act. Best efforts will be made to sample after storm events for documentation and submission with annual monitoring reports. As noted in Section 7.3, if the proposed undertaking is approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change under the EA Act, then Brooks Road Environmental will prepare an EA Compliance Monitoring Program, which will include all of the commitments outlined in Table 7.4, as well as any EA Act conditions of approval..

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #29

Reviewer

Senior Environmental Officer, Hamilton District Office, MOECC

Summary of comments

The district is optimistic off-site odour will improve with the implementation of the on-site leachate treatment facility, however to date; there has been no measurable improvement. Odour and fugitive dust mitigation plans/Standard Operating Procedures should form part of any ECA amendment issued for landfill expansion.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

Status

N/A

Comment #30

Reviewer

Senior Environmental Officer, Hamilton District Office, MOECC

Summary of comments

Further consultation with the local municipality outside of the Brooks Road Landfill Public Liaison Committee (PLC) regarding the visual impact of final landfill height and grade is recommended.

Proponent’s response

As noted in Section 6.13, consultation activities with stakeholders (i.e., PLC, Haldimand County, agencies, Aboriginal communities, and the public) will be associated with the ECA amendment(s) and other regulatory approvals required at the Site, including the determination as to whether barriers or berms to mitigate aesthetic impacts from the expanded Site are required.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #31

Reviewer

Corridor Management Planner, West Region, MTO

Summary of comments

While it is understood that site traffic predominantly utilizes the intersection of Highway 3 and Brooks Road, the EA does not explicitly state that Brooks Road via Highway 3 is a dedicated Haul Route and accordingly, the proponent is able to utilize the surrounding road network for ingress/egress to the site if required. The proponent should be advised that the Ministry of Transportation shall not be held responsible (financially and otherwise) for any closures/impacts to the intersection of Highway 3 and Brooks Road resulting from Ministry of Transportation maintenance, operations, repairs, or construction.

The Ministry of Transportation is satisfied with the Transportation Assessment Report conclusions that improvements are not required at the intersection of Highway 3 and Brooks Road.

Proponent’s response

Thank you for your comments.

It is understood that the Ministry of Transportation shall not be held responsible for any closures/impacts to the intersection of Highway 3 and Brooks Road resulting from Ministry of Transportation maintenance, operations, repairs, or construction.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #32

Reviewer

District Planner, Guelph District Office, MNRF

Summary of comments

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Guelph District Office is in receipt of the Brooks Road Landfill Vertical Capacity Expansion Environmental Assessment (EA) Report (dated February 2017). It is understood that the EA Report has been completed in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. The MNRF has reviewed the EA Report and can offer MOECC the following comments.

It is understood that the proposed landfill expansion would operate within the current footprint with additional waste placed on top of the existing footprint, achieved by re-engineering the site’s final landfill contours. The proposal is for a capacity expansion of approximately 421,000m3 over a 5-7 year planning period.

Section 4.3.4.3 – Wetland delineation

MNRF staff note that GHD Limited undertook a wetland delineation of the North, West, and East Lands within the Local Study Areas over 2013 and 2014 using the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES). However, MNRF was not notified of any proposed updates to the North Cayuga Swamp Wetland Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex boundaries.

It should be noted that any OWES trained evaluator may carry out a wetland evaluations, however, all wetland evaluations must be reviewed and approved by MNRF before they can be considered complete and official, including proposed modifications to PSW boundaries. MNRF staff recommends that any proposed revisions to the boundaries of the North Cayuga Swamp PSW Complex be submitted to MNRF for review.

Proponent’s response

Proposed modifications to the PSW boundaries were identified during the fieldwork associated with the EIS and EA over 2013 and 2014. Wetland boundary delineations were completed by ecological land classification (ELC) and Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) trained GHD staff. Wetland boundary delineations were confirmed in the field by GRCA and NPCA ecologists. Typically, any proposed updates to PSW boundaries would be communicated directly from the local conservation authority to MNRF.

Status

The ministry was informed by the MNRF that the proposed updates to the North Cayuga Swamp Wetland PSW have been received and are currently being reviewed by MNRF’s Integrated Resource Management (IRM) Technical Specialist. MNRF will contact GHD and Conservation Authority staff if additional information is needed.

The ministry is satisfied that these comments are being addressed.

Comment #33

Reviewer

District Planner, Guelph District Office, MNRF

Summary of comments
Section 4.3.4.6 – Wildlife and species at risk
Blanding’s Turtle

As part of the mitigation measures to exclude wildlife from accessing the site, MNRF staff recommends that the silt fence extends along the entire perimeter of the subject property and not just along the north side. This exclusion fence should be routinely monitored and maintained in good working order throughout the life of the landfill. It is important that the silt fence is inspected and maintained for damage after spring thaw and weekly until freeze up, and following heavy rain events. This fence will also serve as an additional measure to help protect the provincially significant North Cayuga Swamp Wetland Complex located adjacent to the site.

MNRF staff recommends that workers/staff on site be trained in the identification of Blanding’s Turtle and other Species at Risk (SAR) known to be within the general vicinity of the site. This should include providing awareness training about SAR turtles and the appropriate steps to take upon encountering a SAR turtle.

General comments

In the event that a SAR protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 is found on the subject property, all activities that could potentially harm the animal should cease immediately and an MNRF Biologist should be contacted.

The Ministry encourages everyone to report sightings of rare species (animals and plants), natural and wildlife concentration areas in Ontario to the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). It would be appreciated if all sightings within the Site Study Area and Local Study Area be reported using the Rare Species Reporting Form to the NHIC. For information on how to report these sightings, please refer to the Report rare species (animals and plants) page on the Ontario website.

Closing

The Ministry appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Brooks Road Landfill Vertical Capacity Expansion EA Report. MNRF staff would appreciate being informed on any updates to the EA.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

Best Management Practices, including the placement of silt fence along the entire perimeter of the subject property, Species at Risk (SAR) identification tools, and steps to take when a known or suspected SAR is encountered, are detailed in Table 7.4 – Recommendations and Commitments in the EA Report.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #34

Reviewer

Heritage Planner, Programs and Services Branch, MTCS

Summary of comments

I have reviewed the cultural heritage resource (archaeology, built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes) component of the EA, and am satisfied with the justifications and conclusions in the report. I have no further comment, nor do I see a need for any conditions of approval from the cultural heritage resource perspective/scope.

Proponent’s response

Thank you for your comments.

Status

N/A

Comment #35

Reviewer

Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority

Summary of comments

Staff find the Environmental Assessment Report completed by GHD acceptable. The EA report provides a comprehensive and thorough assessment of natural heritage features that could potentially be impacted by the various vertical expansion and leachate treatment alternatives. The alternatives reviewed and recommended are expected to have no adverse impacts on surface water or groundwater features, including wetland and watercourse features. It is also understood that no changes to vegetation and wildlife communities, including rare, threatened and endangered species, are anticipated provided appropriate and effective mitigation measures are implemented on site.

On this basis, we have no objections to the "Preferred Undertaking" (i.e. Vertical Expansion Method 2 and On-Site Treatment Facility).

Recommendations
  1. Under Section 5.6.2 Evaluation of the Leachate Treatment Alternatives, comparative evaluation Table 5.14 indicates that the discharge of leachate towards receiving watercourses assumes that the assimilative capacity of surface water (Brooks Road ditch and Norton’s Creek) will be affected by effluent discharge (i.e. quality). The management implications of this statement are unclear and warrant further clarification.
  2. It is recommended that a surface water monitoring program be developed and implemented in order to verify that effluent discharge does not negatively affect water quality or aquatic communities within receiving watercourses located off site.
Proponent’s response

Thank you for your comments.

With respect to your comment on leachate treatment alternatives, while the preferred alternative net effects on surface water quality were determined to be that the assimilative capacity of surface water (Brooks Road ditch and Norton’s Creek) will be affected by effluent discharge (i.e. quality), it should be noted that effluent discharged to Brooks Road ditch and Norton’s Creek will meet Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) parameters as per the current ECA.

A surface water monitoring program is currently in place at the Brooks Road Landfill Site and will continue to include both water quality monitoring and surface water flow measurements. The surface water monitoring network currently consists of seven surface water monitoring stations (two on Site and five off Site) and these stations will be maintained. An eighth monitoring station (SW 2) will be added following the construction of the on Site stormwater management pond.

A summary of the surface water monitoring program is included in Table 7.2 in the EA Report.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #35

Reviewer

Program Manager, Environmental Health Team, Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit

Summary of comments

The HNHU has no objections to the proposed expansion provided the following conditions are met:

  • BMPs are followed
  • Mitigation and monitoring efforts outlined to protect the public’s health are taken
  • Storm water is managed using integrated pest management and integrating ecological principles in order to reduce mosquito habitat and breeding consequentially helping to mitigate mosquito-borne diseases (e.g. West Nile virus)
  • Contingencies/safe guards are developed to address effects of climate change/extreme weather (e.g. account for potential increased rainfall surges increasing precipitation infiltration rates) and accidents or emergencies
  • Any additional measures are taken to prevent the creation of and/or public exposure to known health hazards (e.g. adverse air, ground water, and/or surface water quality) throughout the design, construction and operation of the landfill’s lifespan
Proponent’s response

Thank you for your comments.

BMP Plans will be developed by Brooks Road Environmental following the approval of the undertaking by the Minister and prior to construction. The BMPs will include a description of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures for the relevant disciplines.

Mitigation and monitoring efforts as outlined in the EA Report to protect the public’s health will be implemented as part of carrying out the proposed Undertaking.

Storm water will be managed using integrated pest management and integrating ecological principles in order to reduce mosquito habitat and breeding consequentially helping to mitigate mosquito-borne diseases (e.g. West Nile virus).

As noted in Section 5.8.2 of the EA Report, adaptation at the Brooks Road Landfill will be focused on addressing effects of climate change on the Undertaking. Adaptation measures will be aimed at strengthening and increasing the resilience of the landfill cover and leachate management system.

Contingency plans are developed to proactively identify measures or a process for taking action on unexpected problems resulting from landfill operations. Brooks Road Environmental has committed to developing plans for contingency measures. The plans will include actions to be taken, timing, and roles and responsibilities. The contingency plans will be outlined in Environmental Protection Act documentation (i.e. the amended D&O Report for the Site).

Implementation of the BMP Plans, noted above, will prevent the creation of and/or public exposure to known health hazards.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #36

Reviewer

Supervisor, Construction Permits and Compliance, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority

Summary of comments

NPCA has reviewed the submitted Environmental Assessment Report for the Brooks Road Landfill Site Vertical Capacity Expansion, Dated February 2017 (reference number 018235) and offers the following:

  • It is NPCA’s recommendation that tree hoarding be installed to protect the Black Gum trees identified at the southeast corner of the property.
  • A perimeter ditch is proposed around the footprint of the landfill for stormwater management. If works are proposed within an NPCA regulated wetland or within 30 metres of a regulated wetland, a work permit from the NPCA is required.
  • Monitoring sediment levels in the perimeter ditch and stormwater management pool should occur and be actively managed to prevent water from topping the banks and contaminating the adjacent wetlands.
  • It is NPCA’s recommendation to install silt fence completely around the site (currently occurs in the North) to dissuade wildlife from entering the site. Blanding’s Turtle was observed near the site.
  • Erosion and sediment controls shall be installed and maintained until all disturbed areas of the Site, including the pond and swales, have fully stabilized with vegetation. It is stated in the report until 70 percent of the native background density of growth is achieved, but not sure where this number comes from. The NPCA requires erosion and sediment controls to be maintained until the site is completely vegetated.
Proponent’s response

Thank you for your comments – our responses are as follows:

  • While no works are proposed that would affect the Black Gum trees, as noted in Section 7.2 of the EA Report, BMP Plans will be developed by Brooks Road Environmental following the approval of the undertaking by the Minister and prior to construction. The BMPs will include a description of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures for the relevant disciplines. We will consult with the NPCA on the mitigation measures to be incorporated into the Terrestrial and Aquatic BMP Plan, based on the approved EA as well as further detailed design undertaken as part of amending the existing ECA.
  • No additional works are proposed that would require a work permit from the NPCA, however should amendments to the ECA be required that trigger a work permit, Brooks Road Environmental would consult with the NPCA accordingly.
  • As noted in Table 7.4, Brooks Road Environmental has committed to implementing a stormwater management infrastructure operation, maintenance and inspection plan, including regular sediment level monitoring (i.e. stormwater pond and perimeter ditch)
  • BMPs, including the placement of silt fence along the entire perimeter of the subject property, SAR identification tools, and steps to take when a known or suspected SAR is encountered, are detailed in Table 7.4 – Recommendations and Commitments in the EA Report.
  • The percentage cover referenced is related to vegetation success as per typical erosion and sediment control practices. As noted in Table 7.4, Site erosion and sediment control measures will remain in place until the site has stabilized and vegetated.
Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Table 2: Public comment summary table

Comment #1

Submitter

Doug & Lee Rozon

Summary of comments

I feel that expansion of this site would not be beneficial for the residents of Cayuga. Increased monitoring of the odours escaping from the site is required to ensure that the existing requirements to reduce/eliminate odours escaping are being adhered to. Apparently this site is unable to contain the odours at its current level, so any expansion would be very detrimental for local residents.

Proponents’ response

Odour sources at the Brooks Road Landfill may include the active working face or leachate.

Odour impacts from the vertical expansion of the Site are expected to remain the same or lower than the existing conditions. This is due to the fact that the Site will still be receiving a maximum of 151,000 tonnes per year and will continue to accept the same type of waste resulting in an unchanged odour profile. Further, the addition of the leachate treatment facility will also address odour issues.

Additionally, the area of the active face will remain relatively unchanged and will occur further from the property boundary to allow for proper landfilling slopes to occur. This will reduce and/or maintain any odours present along the property boundary of the Site. Furthermore, operations will occur within the Site’s existing waste footprint and Site boundaries.

Odours are mitigated on Site through the implementation of operational Best Management Practices (BMPs) as well as the application of odour control substances. Operational BMPs to minimize odour include:

  • Daily odour monitoring carried out by the Site Operator
  • Limiting the size of the active landfill working face
  • Applying daily cover to the active landfill working face
  • Applying interim cover at a minimum thickness of 300 mm on areas of the landfill where landfilling has ceased for 6 months or more
  • Limiting exposed areas of the leachate

Brooks Road Environmental continues to invest in the Odour Monitoring Program and will continue to review each complaint with a mandate to identify the source and mitigate or reduce odours that are impacting our community.

In addition to the current monitoring conducted by Brooks Road Environmental personnel and third party consultants, increased monitoring by Brooks Road Environmental personnel will occur when weather predictions for Cayuga show meteorological conditions that have historically been tied to odour complaints and appropriate odour mitigation strategies will be implemented. Brooks Road Environmental has also prepared and submitted a Fugitive Odour Best Management Practices Plan (FOBMPP) to the MOECC Hamilton District Office via email on March 31, 2017 which has been implemented by Brooks Road Environmental personnel to help identify and mitigate potential off-Site odours.

Status

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that will require Brooks Road Environmental (BRE) to submit an odour mitigation performance report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the landfill site’s odour management program and a noticeable decline in the number of odour complaints. This report will be submitted to the ministry for consideration as part of the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application for the vertical landfill expansion, if the EA is approved.

Comment #2

Submitter

Egger Enviro Limited

Summary of comments

In regards to the proposed expansion of the Brooks Road Landfill site, we are anxious to see this go through. We are a small waste removal business located in Haldimand County and are currently hauling all of our waste into Hamilton to dispose of. We have used Brooks Road Landfill in the past and have nothing but wonderful things to say about them. They are very helpful and accommodating while abiding to their daily limits. They are the only privately owned landfill in Haldimand County and are a key component in aiding small businesses in our community remain competitive. We do believe that the annual rate would better benefit their organization as we too see our daily disposal needs follow seasonal highs and lows.

In closing, we feel that the Brooks Road Landfill site would be an extremely beneficial addition to Haldimand County and look forward to being able to dispose at their location in the future.

Proponents’ response

Thank you for your comments.

Status

N/A

Comment #3

Submitter

Richard Clark

Summary of comments

I am a resident of Cayuga who has lived at 249 Townline Road East since 1992, about 1.5 km from the site that has become the dump known as Brooks Road Landfill. When it was reopened around 2002, there was a lot of local resistance, due to concerns of not only smell, but of potential environmental damage due not only to its close proximity to the Grand River, but actual streams that meander through the property and the porous limestone rock underneath that suggested this would be a very poor site for a dump.

After significant money was raised to stop the dump, it soon became apparent that the resources of a small community could not hold off the onslaught of money, lawyers and provincial government decree to find a place to dump Toronto trash, that wouldn't arouse the ire of a more well-heeled community. We were told that this was only 5 tons a day, don't worry about it—we wouldn't even know it was there. This was a lie of course, as soon as the deal was signed there was a rubber stamp approval for 500 tons a day.

When Brooks Road Environmental took over there was talk of expansion, but not to worry, we would only have to put up with the dump for another 5 years and it would be full. They also scoffed at suggestions that the dump would be a smelly eyesore because it was not accepting, "garbage" but only, "industrial waste", such as drywall and scraps of steel studs from construction sites. In a meeting last year, some of the truth came out when they admitted lots of their material comes from bins in industrial malls. These, of course can contain just about anything from food to heavy metals to oil residue, etc.

The last 5 years living near this dump has been hell. The stench of rotting, decayed garbage is frequent, overpowering and an insult to a rural community. Driving into Cayuga on Highway 3 past Brooks Road often smells like you just dumped a diaper pail in the backseat. I'm sure this really encourages tourists to explore Cayuga.

The personal toll on rural citizens is huge; most chose to move out here to enjoy nature and fresh air while suffering the inconvenience of long work commutes, few services, etc. These dreams are severely compromised by the dump, mainly by the odours that often make enjoying the outdoors difficult; add to that the number of times we have had to close our windows up on summer nights because it literally smells like a garbage can of rotting garbage has been left under the bedroom window.

The method of reporting these problems is flawed in that what is needed is a hot line that can be called 24/7 that records and tabulates the number of complaints about the dump. I personally have sent e-mails and made calls to Bill Sutton and Blair Shoniker and they promise to look into it and feign surprise that there is a complaint, etc. I feel like a farmer whose sheep are being killed by wolves, being asked to report these incidents to the wolves.

Looking forward, the proposed height of the vertical expansion would dwarf anything around this area, which is fairly flat. Can't wait for the tourists to ask, what’s that? The current situation is to supposedly cover any fresh garbage every night to control odour. This has been an utter failure, yet they insist this is a proven solution that just needs, tweaking. It’s been 15 years and it just gets worse. I have said in one of the open houses that if you can't control the smell and runoff on a flat area, it only stands to reason it will get much more difficult to control when you pile it up in the air.

Another troubling topic is the monitoring of the leachate runoff from the dump. There are plans to hand this responsibility from the Ministry over to the people running the dump. Again this is like putting the wolves in charge of recording the number of sheep killed.

We, the residents of Cayuga have put up with the dump and its negative effects for 15 years. We have put up with it by gritting our teeth and holding our noses while listening to one lie after another. We were promised this dump would be full and would close around 2017. Please do not lie again and let this dump continue any longer.

Proponents’ response
Proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is the vertical expansion of the capacity of the existing Brooks Road Landfill Site to allow the continued receipt of post diversion Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) waste over a five to seven year planning period and an amendment to the Site’s rate of fill to provide for a maximum of 151,000 tonnes per year. The rationale behind this fill rate amendment is to accommodate busier months of operation in the spring and summer, given that these times of year typically produce more construction waste than the winter months, while not increasing the total annual waste received. The undertaking proposed is for Brooks Road Environmental to continue operating the landfill from a "business as usual" perspective. The planning period is a function of the constraints of the site (i.e., small footprint, ability to develop on existing waste footprint) and the fact that the site will most likely not operate at the maximum annual fill rate at all times. Further, the planning period is a function of the business procured by the owner and the rate at which waste is received. The five to seven year planning period is expected to start in Fall 2017, following EA and Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) approvals.

Many local businesses rely on the Brooks Road Landfill Site for local disposal of their residual IC&I waste. It should be noted that the County does from time to time utilize the Brooks Road Landfill (i.e., street sweepings from the County are disposed at the site) and we will continue to work with the County should they require a local site for their waste material.

Odour, monitoring & reporting

From an odour perspective, Brooks Road Environmental has taken a number of steps to ensure that 1) odour is reduced/mitigated and 2) a continuous monitoring program be put in place at the site to detect odour in real time in order to proactively address any potential issues.

The following operational measures are currently implemented in order to reduce and/or mitigate odour impacts from the Site and will continue throughout the vertical expansion:

  • Continuing with the daily odour monitoring program carried out by the Site Operator.
  • If odours are evident on the property boundary, increase the amount of daily cover applied on the waste.
  • Minimize the active working face. Apply interim cover at a minimum thickness of 300 mm on areas of the landfill where landfilling has ceased for 6 months or more.
  • Limit exposed areas of the leachate collection system.
  • When not in use, ensure blind flanges are placed on leachate collection system cleanouts and sump risers.
  • Make every effort to limit spilled leachate within the leachate storage tank (Baker Area) containment area and immediately clean up any spills when they occur.
  • Continue with the use of odour control granules for odour mitigation. Assess areas of placement and their effect on odour mitigation.
  • Implementation of the Fugitive Odour Best Management Practices Plan.

A commitment to continue and modify, as necessary, these odour control measures is included in the EA Report. As an example, Brooks Road Environmental has made the commitment to implement continuous odour monitoring on site in order to address comments and concerns from the public around odour.

Brooks Road Environmental maintains a record of all environmental complaints received at the Site. Concerned residents or businesses can call Brooks Road Environmental, the Township of Cayuga, or the MOECC if a nuisance effect is perceived to have occurred because of the Brooks Road Facility. All complaints are recorded and investigated by Brooks Road Environmental. Each complaint is logged and, in many cases, Site staff will go to the location where the nuisance was recorded and conduct on site investigations. The date and time of the complaint are cross referenced with data from the Facility in order to determine if any adjustments to operations need to be made at the Site. Each complaint received at the Facility is reported to the MOECC.

Surface water

The stormwater management system for the Site is currently being constructed. The stormwater management system consists of a perimeter ditch around the outside of the landfill footprint and a wet detention stormwater management pond in the southwest corner of the site, complete with inlet structure, forebay, outlet structure, and emergency bypass structure. Quantity and quality requirements outlined in the ECA must be satisfied prior to discharging stormwater runoff to the roadside ditch adjacent to Brooks Road.

Regular surface water field investigations are completed four times annually. The field investigations include monitoring of surface water quality and quantity, through water sampling and flow rate measurements. Additionally, any characteristic changes to drainage patterns, run off, or features influencing site conditions are also identified. The Site stormwater management practices currently operate under amended ECA number 6869-9EAT28, issued in November 2014. Annual Monitoring results are provided in an Annual Monitoring Report due every year by April 30th, which is submitted to the MOECC for their review. In addition, detailed inspections are carried out at the landfill by MOECC on a regular basis.

Leachate treatment & monitoring

An on-site leachate treatment system for the Site is currently being constructed. The site is currently approved for a leachate treatment system with a rated capacity of 30 m3/day and peak daily flow of 60 m3/day. Treated leachate that meets the approval requirements will be discharged to the roadside ditch that runs along the east side of Brooks Road. The treated leachate must meet the standards and limits outlined in the ECA and regular testing and monitoring occurs to ensure the treated leachate meets the set parameters. No major changes to the leachate treatment system are anticipated to be required as a result of the proposed vertical expansion alternatives.

Annual Monitoring results are provided in an Annual Monitoring Report due every year on April 30th, which is submitted to the MOECC for their review. In addition, detailed inspections are carried out at the landfill by MOECC on a regular basis.

Visual impact

There is no by law restricting the height of a landfill in Haldimand County. Views of the Site from surrounding areas to the west and southwest would be minimized by vegetating the screening berm along the western boundary of the Site and/or additional plantings on Site. The Site is surrounded by forested areas to the north, east and southeast which obscure views of the existing Site from these directions, as will be the case for the vertical expansion.

Community benefit & employment

The Brooks Road Landfill Site (Site) supports local businesses by providing local disposal for residual IC&I waste. Providing a local disposal option for residual IC&I waste generated locally is an environmentally responsible practice and Brooks Road Environmental wishes to continue to provide this service.

In terms of financial gains for Haldimand County resulting from the continued operation of the Brooks Road Landfill Site, in addition to the taxes collected directly by the County from the Site, the County also collects taxes from those local businesses that rely on the Brooks Road Landfill Site for local disposal of their residual IC&I waste. It should be noted that the County does from time to time utilize the Brooks Road Landfill (i.e., street sweepings from the County are disposed at the site) and we will continue to work with the County should they require a local site for their waste material.

The site employs local residents both on a permanent and temporary construction basis. In addition, the Site supports local businesses by providing local disposal for residual IC&I waste.

Status

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that will require BRE to submit an odour mitigation performance report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the landfill site’s odour management program and a noticeable decline in the number of odour complaints. This report will be submitted to the ministry for consideration as part of the ECA application for the vertical landfill expansion, if the EA is approved.

The ministry is satisfied with the BRE’s responses regarding Site leachate and stormwater management.

Comment #4

Submitter

Dave Bruce

Summary of comments

This submission is in respect to the environmental assessment of the Brooks Road vertical expansion.

E-7 Transportation Assessment

In the Executive Summary, under Airport Operations, 3.3.6 it states: There are no airports or aerodromes within the local study area. The nearest airports and airfields are as follows: York Aeroclub (a private airfield used for soaring, approximately 7.5 km north of the site… This is not correct. There are 2 registered aerodromes close to the dump site. CCG5 is approximately 1 km south of the site and CAF2 is approximately 2 km east of the site. You may reference the Canada Flight Supplement for this information, under cayuga. In the 3 tables on pages 14 and 15 under Transportation/ Potential Effects: no potential for bird strike hazard to aircraft in local study area. This is an incorrect statement. There is great potential for bird strikes to aircraft in the local study area.

Section 4.0 Description of the Environment Potentially Affected by the Undertaking

Under 4.3.1.1 (page 4-4) On and off-site odour investigations were completed by GHD in 2014 and 2016. These studies indicated that there was no measurable odour off-site… This is an attempt to mislead. Under certain weather conditions the dump site smells. There is recorded information over the years that prove it. Some of the statistics about smell complaints provided by BRE are inaccurate. At the latest PLC meeting on March 8th, it was brought up by residents that the number of complaints does not correspond to the reports. Clarissa Whitelaw of the MOE explained that some smell complaints may not be passed from the MOE to BRE. This statement should be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. I contend if there was an accurate account of smell complaints, the number is increasing. If BRE can’t control the odour now, how will they control it as the site increases by 70%?

E-4 Geology and Hydrogeology Assessment

On page 13, Mining Claims and Abandoned Mines. Carolyn, I urge you to read the whole section very carefully. You will see sentences: thus essentially steady state conditions should, in the unlikely event, under this scenario there could, is anticipated to be negligible.

In this section the report mentions the second gypsum mine shaft was located 305 meters south of the first shaft. The 1994 inspection was unable to locate the second shaft. It goes on to say they don’t know anything about the second shaft. Where it went, how much was mined, or how it was closed.

Page 14 under ‘Other Data Sources’ there is a sentence, furthermore, no sink holes or caving features have been identified in the study area. Talk to any long-time resident farmer in Haldimand County and they will tell you about sink holes and ground subsistence they have witnessed or heard about. The distance between the clay liner, 191 to 189 MASL and the top of the bedrock, 180.8 to 185.73 MASL is as close as 3.27 meters. How many more tonnes are BRE going to put on top of the existing pile?

The E-4 Geology and Hydrogeology Assessment is the most important part to consider. If there is subsistence under the dump site, the liner will tear open and the leachate will leak into the water aquifer below. How many wells would be contaminated? How could it be fixed?

Who chooses the size of the Local Study Area?

I sent a submission to Wesley Wright about concerns of BRE vertical expansion on September 8th, 2016. I would appreciate an acknowledgement that you received this submission and also the earlier one. If you have any questions, please contact me.

Proponents’ response

Thank you for directing us to NAV Canada, Canada Flight Supplement. We note that this publication is not a publicly available document, requiring purchase from NAV Canada in order to view it.

A review of online mapping tools does not identify registered aerodromes CCG5 and CAF2.

Through direct internet searches for CCG5 and CAF2 we have been able to locate these two registered aerodromes approximately 1.2 km south and 2.7 km southeast of the Brooks Road Landfill Site, respectively. It is noted that both registered aerodromes are located beyond the Local Study Area.

Transport Canada identifies three different categories of aerodromes, each presenting progressively different safety requirements. In order of ascending safety level, these categories are:

  • aerodromes (small airstrips located on private property that are neither registered nor certified)
  • registered aerodromes
  • certified aerodromes, referred to as airports

According to Transport Canada, while listed, registered aerodromes are not certified as airports in the Canada Flight Supplement (CFS)—a publication for pilots containing operating information for registered aerodromes and airport; and are not subject to ongoing inspection by Transport Canada (Transport Canada, TP 13549—Sharing the Skies)

With respect to potential bird strikes, the primary mitigation measure to control avian wildlife at the Site is installation of daily cover, at a thickness of 150 mm, at the end of each working day. If avian wildlife persists, the daily cover thickness is increased until avian wildlife is deterred. In areas of the landfill that have not been active for 6 months, interim cover is installed at a thickness of 300 mm. This approach has proven effective historically; the Site does not currently have an issue with avian wildlife. Should avian wildlife not be deterred through the installation of daily/interim cover, alternative options, such as putrescible waste reduction and application for a scare permit, will be explored.

Odour, monitoring & reporting

From an odour perspective, Brooks Road Environmental has taken a number of steps to ensure that:

  1. odour is reduced/mitigated
  2. a continuous monitoring program be put in place at the site to detect odour in real time in order to proactively address any potential issues

The following operational measures are currently implemented in order to reduce and/or mitigate odour impacts from the Site and will continue throughout the vertical expansion:

  • Continuing with the daily odour monitoring program carried out by the Site Operator.
  • If odours are evident on the property boundary, increase the amount of daily cover applied on the waste.
  • Minimize the active working face. Apply interim cover at a minimum thickness of 300 mm on areas of the landfill where landfilling has ceased for 6 months or more.
  • Limit exposed areas of the leachate collection system.
  • When not in use, ensure blind flanges are placed on leachate collection system cleanouts and sump risers.
  • Make every effort to limit spilled leachate within the leachate storage tank (Baker Area) containment area and immediately clean up any spills when they occur.
  • Continue with the use of odour control granules for odour mitigation. Assess areas of placement and their effect on odour mitigation.
  • Implementation of the Fugitive Odour Best Management Practices Plan.

A commitment to continue and modify, as necessary, these odour control measures is included in the EA Report. As an example, Brooks Road Environmental has made the commitment to implement continuous odour monitoring on-site in order to address comments and concerns from the public around odour.

Brooks Road Environmental maintains a record of all environmental complaints received at the Site. Concerned residents or businesses can call Brooks Road Environmental, the Township of Cayuga, or the MOECC if a nuisance effect is perceived to have occurred because of the Brooks Road Facility. All complaints are recorded and investigated by Brooks Road Environmental. Each complaint is logged and, in many cases, Site staff will go to the location where the nuisance was recorded and conduct on site investigations. The date and time of the complaint are cross referenced with data from the Facility in order to determine if any adjustments to operations need to be made at the Site. Each complaint received at the Facility is reported to the MOECC.

In addition to the current monitoring conducted by BRE personnel and third party consultants, increased monitoring by BRE personnel will occur when weather predictions for Cayuga show meteorological conditions that have historically been tied to odour complaints and appropriate odour mitigation strategies will be implemented. BRE has also prepared and submitted a Fugitive Odour Best Management Practices Plan (FOBMPP) to the MOECC Hamilton District Office via email on March 31, 2017 which has been implemented by BRE personnel to help identify and mitigate potential off-Site odours.

The Gypsum Mine Investigation Report that was prepared in direct response to residents’ concerns around this issue during the Terms of Reference stage reviewed information related to historical mining operations including location and extent of mining activities, review of physical site conditions for evidence of historical mining operations, and an evaluation of hydraulic gradients within the available monitoring network to identify potential evidence of a hydraulic influence on horizontal or vertical gradients in the vicinity of the Site. The report concluded that there is no evidence of an influence related to the former Cayuga Gypsum Mine on the bedrock aquifer at the Landfill Site.

The proposed undertaking is the vertical expansion of the capacity of the existing Brooks Road Landfill Site to allow the continued receipt of post diversion IC&I waste over a five to seven year planning period and an amendment to the Site’s rate of fill to provide for a maximum of 151,000 tonnes per year. The five to seven year planning period is expected to start in Fall 2017, following EA and ECA approvals. It should be noted that a volumetric calculation, using a (potential) vertical expansion of 4:1 slope to show total airspace and subtracting the currently approved capacity, was undertaken to arrive at 421,000 m3. Assuming a density of 1 tonne per cubic metre of air space consumed for the landfill waste, there is potential capacity for 421,000 tonnes. A five to seven year planning period has been provided for as the amount of waste received tends to fluctuate year over year. Ultimately, the landfill will not exceed 421,000 m3 (total), nor will it exceed 151,000 tonnes for any given year.

A geotechnical assessment was carried out during the design of the landfill to assess the suitability of the site for the landfilling of waste. The assessment considered the bearing capacity, differential settlement and slope stability during construction, operation and after closure, and addressed any potential effects on the liner and leachate collection system. Further to this, the landfill has contingency measures for the collection of leachate that would be carried out, if necessary, if a liner or leachate collection system fails or if leachate otherwise leaves the waste fill zone.

The On-site and Local study areas were proposed in the Terms of Reference for the Brooks Road Landfill Vertical Capacity Expansion EA, approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change on July 31, 2015.

A copy of your submission regarding the Draft Brooks Road Landfill Vertical Capacity Expansion EA dated September 7, 2016 is included in the Record of Consultation to the Brooks Road Landfill Vertical Capacity Expansion EA Report. Responses to your comments are found in both the Public Comment Table (Appendix J to the Record of Consultation) as well as in Table 6.3 of Section 6.0 (Consultation) of the EA Report where they are arranged by issue.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with BRE’s proposed avian wildlife control measures to mitigate the potential for bird strikes within the Local Study Area.

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that will require BRE to submit an odour mitigation performance report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the landfill site’s odour management program and a noticeable decline in the number of odour complaints. This report will be submitted to the ministry for consideration as part of the ECA application for the vertical landfill expansion, if the EA is approved.

The ministry is satisfied with the responses provided by BRE regarding the local study area, geology and hydrogeology.

The ministry has reviewed the letter dated September 7th, 2016 addressed to Mr. Wesley Wright and BRE’s responses in letters dated September 20, and October 21, 2016 (included in Attachment J of EA Volume 3 – Record of Consultation), and find the responses to be satisfactory.

Comment #5

Submitter

Clean Soils Inc.

Summary of comments

Further to the letter dated February 9, 2017 regarding the proposed Brooks Road Landfill Vertical Capacity Expansion. Clean Soils Inc., is in support of the proposed vertical expansion under this EA for the Brooks Road Landfill, located at 160 Brooks Road Cayuga, Ontario.

Proponents’ response

Thank you for your comments.

Status

N/A

Comment #6

Submitter

Grand Disposal Inc.

Summary of comments

I am writing in support of Brooks Road Landfill’s proposed vertical expansion.

I operate a small local waste management company and have been using Brooks Road for the past few years. I find them to be very competent operators. The facility is clean, safe, and efficient. I have observed their staff conducting regular odour checks, and have noted that the road leading to their site is always kept clean and swept.

The management and staff at Brooks Road are very supportive of local business. They extend smaller local companies special pricing normally reserved for large companies. This allows us to remain competitive against large multi-nationals.

Because having an inexpensive and secure method of waste disposal in the community is absolutely essential for any local economy, I encourage you to support this expansion.

Proponents’ response

Thank you for your comments.

Status

N/A

Comment #7

Submitter

Strela Trucking Ltd.

Summary of comments

This letter is to express my support for the vertical expansion of the Brooks Road Landfill.

I have been working with this facility and cannot believe the changes and improvements that have been done to this site over the years.

I do a lot of work for local businesses in Haldimad County. If it were not for Brooks Road Landfill, many local businesses would not have able to survive, because they would have to transport waste material outside of Haldimand County.

The location of the facility is very central to the County, and in my opinion, is very well managed and operated.

Proponents’ response

Thank you for your comments.

Status

N/A

Comment #8

Submitter

R.D. Cookson Disposal Ltd.

Summary of comments

We are a small disposal company located in Norfolk County. We provide disposal bins to our local area Norfolk and Haldimand Counties. We have been using Brooks Road Environmental at the Cayuga Landfill Site for several years. Since the closure of the Tom Howe Landfill by Hagersville there are no local landfills for our area to use. Cayuga is a reasonable alternative, otherwise garbage has to be hauled all the way to the Niagara Region which is a huge waste of resources and energy.

We support the expansion of this landfill in order to provide a fair and competitive service for our business and other businesses in our area who otherwise struggle without this service being available. Please consider the above in making your decision.

Proponents’ response

Thank you for your comments.

Status

N/A

Comment #9

Submitter

905Wood.com Corporation

Summary of comments

I am writing this letter to you to inform you that I support the vertical expansion at the Brooks Road Landfill. We have been long term customers of the landfill and have always received the highest degree of service. I believe it would negatively impact local businesses if the landfill were to run out of capacity and have to close its doors.

Proponents’ response

Thank you for your comments.

Status

N/A

Appendix B figures

Download a larger version of figures 1-4 (PDF)

Figure 1: Brooks Road landfill site cross section plan

An engineering drawing of the Brooks Road Landfill Site in plan view showing the locations of geotechnical boreholes, and groundwater monitoring and observation wells. Two cross sections are drawn, A to A' which runs west to east, and B to B' which runs north to south.

Figure 2: Geological cross-section A–A’

A cross-section drawing of A to A’ showing the geological strata from west to east at the Brooks Road Landfill Site, along with the depths of boreholes, groundwater wells, and the fill area. The high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner rests on top of a compacted clay layer at approximately 9 metres below the ground surface. Bedrock is approximately 16 metres below the ground surface.

Figure 3: Geological cross-section B–B’

A cross-section drawing of B to B’ showing the geologic profile of the Brooks Road Landfill Site from north to south. The drawing shows the profile of the landfill area with the clay stockpile to the left (northern portion of the site) and the stormwater retention pond to the right (southern portion of the site), in addition to boreholes and groundwater wells.

Figure 4: Water and landfill gas monitoring program site plan

A detailed site plan showing the locations of on-site and off-site groundwater, surface water and landfill gas monitoring locations. There are five pairs of groundwater observation wells within the Brooks Road Landfill Site. There are thirteen groundwater and eight surface water monitoring stations within and surrounding the landfill property boundary. There are four pairs of landfill gas measuring probes: one pair at the northwest corner of the landfill property; one pair at the screening berm alongside Brooks Road; one pair at the southwest corner of the property, and one pair adjacent the stormwater management pond.