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

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Ministry Review was February 5, 2010. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act (Act).

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

Executive summary

Who

Town of Hanover and Municipality of Brockton

What

Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking defined as the Hanover/Walkerton Landfill Expansion. The undertaking includes the expansion of the existing Hanover/Walkerton landfill to provide an additional 347,000 cubic metres of disposal capacity for municipal waste to service the Town of Hanover and the former Town of Walkerton (now the amalgamated Municipality of Brockton).

When

EA submitted: October 2, 2009
Amended Volume 1 of EA submitted: January 2010
EA comment period: October 9, 2009 to November 27, 2009
Ministry Review comment period: February 19 to March 26, 2010

Where

The Hanover/Walkerton landfill site is located on Part Lots 68 to 73, Concessions 1 and 2 in the former Township of Brant (now within the amalgamated Municipality of Brockton) in southwestern Ontario. The service area is the geographic boundaries of the Town of Hanover and the former Town of Walkerton. The Town of Hanover is located in the southwest quadrant of Grey County and is on the boundary of Grey and Bruce Counties. The former Town of Walkerton is now within the Municipality of Brockton, located in Bruce County.

Why

To provide additional solid waste disposal capacity for the Town of Hanover and former Town of Walkerton for an additional 25 years after the existing landfill reaches its approved capacity.

Conclusions

The ministry Review concludes that the EA, as amended in January 2010, was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and contained sufficient information to assess the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking. A decision will be made on the amended January 2010 EA.

Environmental assessment process

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

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

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

1.1 Terms of reference

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

On November 27, 2006, the Minister approved the Town of Hanover (Hanover) and Municipality of Brockton’s (Brockton) ToR. The ToR set out how Hanover and Brockton would assess alternatives, assess environmental effects and consult with the public during the preparation of the EA. The ToR established the process Hanover and Brockton would follow to evaluate the alternative methods for carrying out the proposed undertaking and to identify mitigation measures to address net effects of the preferred alternative. The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.

1.2 Environmental assessment

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

On October 2, 2009, Hanover and Brockton submitted the Hanover/Walkerton Landfill Expansion EA to the ministry for approval for the proposed landfill expansion (the proposed undertaking). The EA was made available for inspection and comment by interested persons for a seven-week period between October 9, 2009 and November 27, 2009.

1.3 Ministry review

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

The EAA, known simply as the ministry Review (Review). The Review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the EAA and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

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

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

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

A Notice of Completion of the Review will be published in the local newspaper indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period. Copies of the Review will be placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period will also receive copies of the Review.

The proposed undertaking

Background

The Hanover/Walkerton landfill is located in the former Municipality of Brant (now the amalgamated Municipality of Brockton) in Bruce County, on the north side of Bruce County Road 4 immediately west of the Saugeen River. The existing landfill has a licensed waste footprint of 7.45 hectares (ha) within a total landfill site area of 49.5 ha. The landfill has a Certificate of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) permitting it to accept municipal waste, including residential, industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) from Hanover and the former Town of Walkerton (Walkerton) and serves these two municipalities.

In August 2005, a Waste Management Evaluation Study (WMES) was conducted by a consultant for Hanover and Walkerton to evaluate the municipal solid waste disposal needs for Hanover and Walkerton and provide a recommendation on the future direction of municipal solid waste management. The WMES reviewed the historical population growth, quantities and composition of waste generated within the service area, population projections and waste generation rates. The report estimated disposal needs for a period of 20 years, once the existing landfill reached capacity, would be an additional 270,000 cubic metres (m3). The study looked at several waste disposal options including a new landfill site, landfill mining, extending the life of the existing landfill site, expanding the existing landfill site, exporting to a surrounding municipality or other technologies, such as incineration and composting. The WMES concluded that the preferred option for this additional disposal capacity would be the expansion of the existing landfill footprint towards the north or the west, or a combination of the two.

both the WMES and the 2007 Annual Monitoring Report prepared for the existing landfill calculated that the service life for the existing landfill would end in mid-2010. The ministry is in discussion with the proponent about possible contingency plans if the existing Hanover/Walkerton landfill reaches capacity before a decision is made on the EA and before other necessary approvals are received. Such contingency plans may include other options for addressing their waste disposal needs on a temporary basis or an emergency Certificate of Approval under the EPA.

Description of the preferred undertaking

The undertaking is for the expansion of the existing Hanover/Walkerton landfill to provide an additional 347,000 m3 of disposal capacity over a 25-year period by expanding the existing 7.45 ha waste footprint by an additional 4.1 ha in a westerly direction. The lands of the expanded footprint are presently owned by Hanover. The final height of the area of expansion will match the height of the existing fill area, reaching an elevation of 295 metres. The expanded footprint will be underlain by a geomembrane and leachate collection system, in accordance with the Ministry’s Landfill Standards: A Guideline on the Regulatory and Approval Requirements for New or Expanding Landfilling Sites, 1998, Generic Design Option 1. The Generic Design Option 1 incorporates specific liner and leachate collection system designs. The total site area of the landfill will be increased from 49.5 ha to 106.4 ha to incorporate additional buffer lands to the east and west. The additional buffer area is required to the east for groundwater control and to the west for landfill gas migration control.

Leachate will be collected in a storage tank/pond and hauled off-site for treatment at either the Hanover or Walkerton Water Pollution Control Plants (WPCP). The EA investigated the viability of using these two existing waste water treatment plants for the treatment of the leachate and concluded that the Walkerton WPCP would be better suited to manage the leachate from the expansion area. The use of the Hanover WPCP would be considered part of a contingency plan that would be developed for the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) application and design report for plant modifications. The waste types included in the undertaking are: solid, non-hazardous residential, industrial/commercial/institutional, construction/demolition waste, biosolids, household hazardous waste.

Other infrastructure associated with the expansion will include:

  • Construction of a perimeter ditch and associated culverts to control drainage
  • Construction of a stormwater management pond for the quantity and quality control of on-site surface water and its drainage outlet
  • Improvements to existing on-site infrastructure (e.g. access road, electrical power supply, signage, bin relocation) to accommodate the expansion
  • Application of final cover over the existing fill area once the landfill site capacity is reached and the expansion area can start receiving waste
  • Improvements to the Walkerton and/or Hanover WPCP to accept the hauled leachate
  • Any other structure or associated facility resulting from commitments made to the public and/or agencies during the development of the EA, such as the planting of vegetation to improve screening

The expansion will be 4.1 ha in size in a westerly direction of the footprint of the existing landfill. As with the existing landfill, the expansion will continue to service Hanover and Walkerton.

If EAA approval is granted, the Hanover/Walkerton Landfill Expansion will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA; any proposed conditions of approval; and will include the details outlined above. In addition, Hanover and Brockton must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Waste diversion

Hanover and Brockton have both implemented several waste diversion strategies, including full user-pay programs to encourage recycling and waste reduction; comprehensive curbside recycling programs; and, leaf and yard waste programs. In 2008, Hanover and Brockton assessed additional waste diversion initiatives to reduce waste and improve diversion rates. In August 2009, both municipalities endorsed the implementation of clear bags for garbage collection by July 2010 to improve the sorting of products and increase the blue box material diversion rate. In addition, both Hanover and Brockton operate a Waste Management Committee that addresses waste management and diversion issues impacting both communities.

Figure 1: Hanover/Walkerton Landfill Expansion EA

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

Figure 2: Hanover/Walkerton Landfill Expansion EA

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

Results of the ministry review

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

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The ministry concludes that the EA followed the framework set out in the approved ToR, addressed the commitments made in the approved ToR, and demonstrated how the required components of the EAA have been met.

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

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-submission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be taken prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR. This plan included obtaining input from the public through a number of methods such as workshops and open houses, community meetings, consultation documents and stakeholder and agency meetings. The consultation plan also committed to having public information and input coincide with milestones of the EA process.

The ministry is satisfied with the level of consultation with the public, the GRT and local municipalities that occurred during the preparation of this EA and concludes that the level of consultation was appropriate for this proposed undertaking. This included providing an opportunity for ministry reviewers and GRT members to review and comment on the draft EA.

The EA adequately documents the key consultation milestones with the public during the preparation of the EA. The EA also describes the opportunities for the GRT to review and provide input on the EA. Much of the discussion between agencies and the proponent, as well as between the public and the proponent were not included in the EA formally submitted to the ministry on October 2, 2009. The proponent has since revised the EA to address this omission in the amended January 2010 EA.

While the proponent provided notification to Aboriginal communities at key milestones of the EA, the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) and Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) have requested to have further discussions about the potential impacts of the proposed undertaking. Discussions with the MNO and with the SON are ongoing and there may be issues raised by the MNO or the SON related to their respective concerns. At the time of the publication of this Review, consultation with the MNO and the SON remains outstanding.

Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and interested Aboriginal communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking.

All comments received by the ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to Hanover and Brockton for a response. Summaries of all the comments received along with Hanover and Brockton’s responses are included in Tables 1–3.

Government Review Team (GRT) consultation

Consultation with the GRT was conducted throughout the EA process, including pre-submission discussions with ministry staff and GRT members on the draft EA. Comments made from ministry staff on the draft EA were incorporated into the October 2009 EA. A summary of the comments made and Hanover and Brockton’s response regarding the draft EA can be found in Table I-4 of Appendix B, and original correspondence can be found in Appendix E, of the amended January 2010 EA.

Members of the GRT were provided copies of the October 2009 EA for their review during the seven-week comment period. All comments received were forwarded by the ministry to the proponent for a response. A summary of the proponent’s responses can be found in Table 1 of this Review.

Ministry reviewers advised the proponent that additional groundwater flow modeling should be conducted to document the impacts of the combined existing and proposed expanded landfill on groundwater and that the EA should contain additional details on the monitoring programs and contingency plans. Ministry reviewers also required that additional consultation information be incorporated into the EA and more clarity on the commitments made and how net effects of each alternative method will be addressed through the mitigation measures. The proponent has incorporated these changes into the amended January 2010 EA to address these concerns.

Public consultation

The proponent described the consultation it conducted during the EA process in section 8.0 of the EA. As described in the ToR, the proponent consulted with the public at key milestones in the process, published the notice of study commencement in local newspapers and on the municipalities websites. The proponent also published notices in the two local newspapers informing the public about its three Open Houses, which were held to share information and obtain input from the public. Other information was also posted on the Hanover website including the notices, executive summaries and full copies of supporting reports, information presented at the open houses and contact detail for providing comments at anytime during the EA process.

Concurrent with the EA process, Brockton proceeded to amend the existing land use by-law to change lands of Lot 68 and 69 around the landfill from the designation of agricultural to waste disposal, and for the landfill property surrounding the actual landfill from general agriculture to open space special for accessory uses to the proposed expansion, such as an access road, drainage ditch, stormwater management pond, leachate pumping station and methane gas collection system. While separate from the EA process, a zoning amendment is required under the Planning Act by the proponent prior to the expansion occurring. The proponent held a public meeting to discuss the change to the zoning in the summer of 2009. Following this meeting, concerns were raised to the ministry about the expansion of the landfill, particularly from the Marl Lake Community, which is located to the northwest of the existing landfill.

Following the formal submission of the EA, members of the public submitted comments to the ministry. Eighty petition letters were received by the ministry, citing concerns that the existing landfill should never have originally been built in its present location, due to proximity to the Saugeen River, and that the expansion should not happen, especially in light of the lessons learned from the Walkerton drinking water tragedy. Twenty-one letters from the public were received, citing concerns about the expansion of the landfill in an already inappropriate location; leachate going into the Saugeen River and Marl Lake; rezoning a large area from general agriculture to waste disposal; existing problems with nuisance birds; increased smells; visual impacts due to proposed height of expansion; lowering of the water table; and, incomplete study of impact on aquifers.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to the requirement in the EAA that interested persons be consulted, consultation with potentially affected Aboriginal communities is also required during the pre-submission period. Aboriginal communities may have special land and treaty rights that need to be considered.

As a result, the proponent contacted the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation (together the Saugeen Ojibway Nation; SON), the Historic Saugeen Métis (HSM), Grey Own Sound Métis (GOSM) and the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO).

During the preparation of the EA, the proponent sent the SON invitations by mail to attend three Open Houses held by the proponents, during the preparation of the EA. Each of the Open Houses corresponded to key milestones in the EA process, those being the review of evaluation methodology and criteria (Open House 1), review of the evaluation of design alternatives and recommended preferred alternative (Open House 2), and review the preferred alternative and draft EA (Open House 3). both communities were also circulated an information package of details to be presented at the Open Houses. Representatives of the SON did not attend the open houses nor was any response to the Open House invitations received by the SON. The proponent did not offer any Open House or information session specific to the SON.

Following the ministry’s review of the draft EA, the ministry advised the proponent that the HSM, GOSM and the MNO should be contacted regarding the EA. As a result, the proponent provided each organization with a copy of the draft EA. In response to the circulation of the draft EA, the HSM indicated that the project may have a negative impact on heritage, historical, cultural and archaeological resources. Because of this, the HSM requested that it be notified if excavation occurs on the site or if future activities related to the landfill that may impact the area watersheds. The MNO discussed the draft EA with the proponent, specifically, how the MNO could participate in the EA process and wished to meet with the proponent to discuss further.

The proponent also contacted Indian and northrn Affairs Canada (INAC) and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) during the draft EA phase for their input regarding community’s that may have an interest in the proposed undertaking. INAC indicated that there are no comprehensive or special claims to the proposed landfill expansion or any active litigation in the vicinity of the property. MAA indicated by phone that they did not recommend any additional communities or organization to be contacted.

Following receipt of the final EA by the ministry, the ministry provided a copy of the EA to each of the communities identified for their review and comment.

In response to its receipt of the EA, the HSM indicated that it was not able to comment on the EA as it had not been provided provincial government capacity support for processes related to the project and EA, as other Aboriginals in the Saugeen territory have been provided. The HSM requested to be kept updated on the project and EA process and to receive notification and relevant correspondence.

The MNO requested the opportunity to meet with the proponent to discuss the EA. A meeting with the MNO, the ministry and the proponents is currently scheduled for February 11, 2010.

The SON indicated to ministry staff that it has concerns about consultation conducted for this EA and the lack of resources for reviewing the EA. The ministry met with the SON in January, 2010 to discuss their concerns, at which time the SON further reiterated the need for meaningful consultation and capacity to review the EA. Future discussions will be occurring between the ministry, SON, and proponents to identify any potential concerns the SON may have with the proposed undertaking.

A summary of comments submitted by the Aboriginal communities and organizations can be found in Table 3.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The EAA requires a proponent to consult interested persons during the preparation of the EA and report on the results of those consultations. The ministry is satisfied that Hanover and Brockton appropriately followed the consultation plan outlined in the approved ToR, including the commitment to document all consultation activities, summary of comments, and any changes to the EA as a result of comments in the EA.

Overall, the ministry is satisfied that Hanover and Brockton provided sufficient opportunities for the public and interested stakeholders to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. Concerns raised by the public during the three Open Houses are summarized in Appendix E of the amended January 2010 EA. Hanover and Brockton responded to these concerns in individual letters to the members of the public. In addition, Hanover and Brockton further engaged in discussions about the proposed undertaking with concerned citizens at Council meetings that occurred after the submission of the EA to the ministry.

The ministry is satisfied that Hanover and Brockton provided adequate notification to Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the EA; however, discussions are ongoing with several communities, notably, the SON and MNO, from which potential concerns with the proposed undertaking may be identified.

The EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by Hanover and Brockton to engage the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities during the EA process. The EA details the issues and concerns raised and how they were addressed or will be addressed in the future. Comments raised by the public during the first inspection period of the EA, and Hanover and Brockton’s responses, are documented in Table 2 of this Review.

The ministry is satisfied that Hanover and Brockton met the requirements for consultation as detailed in the approved ToR and as required in the EAA.

3.2 EA process

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

The Hanover/Walkerton landfill is anticipated to reach capacity in mid-2010. The assessment and decision to expand the existing landfill followed an evaluation of the waste disposal needs and options for the existing landfill, prior to the commencement of the EA process. The results of the WMES supported the option of expanding the existing landfill, for which Hanover and Brockton have proceeded through the EA process.

This EA was prepared in accordance with section 6(2)(c) of the EAA. Hanover and Brockton prepared a ToR, approved by the ministry in 2006, to focus the EA on only the evaluation of alternative methods for the expansion of the existing Hanover/Walkerton landfill. The alternative methods to be considered during the EA, as outlined in the ToR, included the evaluation of increasing disposal capacity by using natural attenuation or through an engineered facility or a combination of both. within each of these methods, alternative designs and technologies would be investigated. In the EA, the alternative methods for carrying out the undertaking are described in section 3.0. The alternative methods for expanding the existing waste footprint included a lateral expansion (direction of development) and/or vertical expansion (waste deposition below ground in an excavation or above ground or combination) of the waste footprint.

Hanover and Brockton originally started with six alternative methods, but following the input of the public during the first Open House, two additional alternatives were included, for a total of eight alternatives. One of these alternatives was for an expansion to the landfill footprint with increased height of the waste, to match the height of the existing landfill. This increase of five metres resulted in an increase of the capacity of the landfill expansion to 347,000 m3 and increased the service life to 25 years. although the WMES recommended an expansion for a period of 20 years and for 270,000 m3, the proposed undertaking in the approved ToR did not define any specific capacity increase for the expansion. This increased capacity of 347,000 m3 for the expansion is in accordance with the ToR.

The EA provides an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternative methods of landfilling to address the problem and opportunity of providing for waste disposal capacity for Hanover and Brockton.

Hanover and Brockton followed the EA decision-making process outlined in the approved ToR for evaluating alternative methods for expanding the landfill. A description of how the alternative methods were assessed is detailed in section 5.0 of the EA. As the decision to expand the landfill was made as the alternative to, the ToR and EA did not evaluate other alternatives to expansion.

Hanover and Brockton evaluated the alternative methods in accordance with the evaluation approach described in the approved ToR. The criteria developed for the evaluation of the alternative methods considered the natural, physical, social and cultural, and economic environment, as well as public health and safety, transportation, and technical constraints and considerations. Each criterion contained subcategories for evaluation, which are listed in section 5.0 as well as in Table I-1 of the EA. Indicators were selected for each criterion as well as a rationale for why they were selected. A comparative evaluation method was used to select the preferred alternative method. The method compared the relative difference between the alternative methods of developing the site and is a qualitative evaluation methodology that considered trade-offs using professional judgement. For each of the seven criteria, a preferred method was identified, and the alternative with the greatest advantages was selected as the preferred undertaking.

The proponent evaluated the potential environmental effects of the alternatives, and documented these in Table I-8 of Appendix B of the amended January 2010 EA. The EA contains a description of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each alternative method and the proposed undertaking.

Measures to mitigate potential environmental effects were considered throughout the evaluation. Commitments are also listed that will mitigate the net effects of the preferred alternative. These include bentheic and vegetation condition monitoring programs; groundwater, surfacewater and landfill gas monitoring programs; and, a wildlife management plan. The EA also describes the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation and maintenance phases of the expansion, and contains a list of future commitments. The proponent provided detail on the commitments that are in place for ensuring that negative environmental effects are minimized, as documented in Table I-3 of Appendix B of the amended January 2010 EA. They also provided a monitoring and contingency plan to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. A preliminary review of the contingency and monitoring plans suggest that ministry staff are satisfied with the details and ability of the plans to mitigate impacts. Additional details and work will be required as part of the EPA and the OWRA approvals processes.

3.2.1 Key issues

Comments were raised by the ministry on the October 2009 EA regarding the requirement of the EAA to include a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of the alternative methods in the EA, to provide further details on the landfill monitoring program, a list of all commitments, and the preparation of a contingency plan, as required through the commitments made in the approved ToR. All comments on the EA, including Hanover and Brockton’s responses and ministry’s level of satisfaction can be found in Table 1 of this Review. Hanover and Brockton have addressed these comments in the amended January 2010 EA. In particular, Tables I-3, I-7 and I-8, a contingency plan, and details of an updated monitoring program and schedule, have been prepared and included in the amended January 2010 EA to address these concerns.

The ministry also raised concerns that all correspondence with the ministry, GRT, Aboriginal communities and the public was not documented in the EA. Hanover and Brockton have compiled all of the correspondence and included it in Appendix E of the amended January 2010 EA.

Regarding the requirements for consultation, consultation with Aboriginal groups is still ongoing. The SON have indicated that Hanover and Brockton did not engage in an appropriate level of consultation to allow them to comment on the EA. The MNO have indicated they also need further opportunities to discuss the proposed undertaking and its potential impacts.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decision-making process. The decision-making process is logical, transparent and clear in the EA.

The EA contains an explanation of the problem and opportunities that prompted the EA. Hanover and Brockton considered a reasonable range of alternative methods to the undertaking and evaluated them in the study area using criteria that considered the EAA’s broad definition of the environment (e.g. including natural, social, cultural, and economic). The EA provides a description of the affected environment in the study area and identifies the elements of the environment that may be affected by the alternatives.

The EA also includes monitoring and contingency plans to ensure negative impacts of the undertaking are minimized.

The EA, as amended in January 2010, adequately describes the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking based on those potential environmental effects.

Requirements of the EAA for consultation with the public and the GRT have been met; however, consultation is still ongoing with two Aboriginal groups (the MNO and the SON).

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

3.3 Proposed undertaking

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

While the procedural and legislative requirements of the approved ToR and EAA have been met, issues were raised during consultation with the GRT and Aboriginal communities that need to be addressed before a decision about the undertaking can be made. A copy of comments received from the GRT is contained in Appendix B of this Review. Also, a summary of all comments, including the response from Hanover and Brockton and the ministry’s level of satisfaction with those responses, can be found in Tables 1–3.

3.3.1 Key issues

Key issues regarding the proposed undertaking completed by Hanover and Brockton for the Hanover/Walkerton Landfill Expansion EA were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period on the EA submission. A number of issues were raised by the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities. Below is a summary of the key issues raised and how they were or will be resolved.

Monitoring program and contingency plan

The approved ToR requires Hanover and Brockton to prepare a monitoring program for the landfill expansion, including a list of monitoring commitments and a monitoring schedule, to be put in place for the design, construction, operation, and closure/post-closure phases of the proposed undertaking, to ensure that the net effects are monitored. A monitoring schedule was not included in the October 2009 EA. although the ToR did not specify the factors to be included in the monitoring program, the proposed monitoring plan in the October 2009 EA included monitoring of landfill gas, groundwater levels, surfacewater and groundwater quality, and leachate quality. The October 2009 EA also did not include the details of contingency plan should unanticipated impacts be identified through the monitoring program, as required in the approved ToR. Additionally, ministry reviewers requested that Hanover and Brockton implement an amended monitoring program for the existing and expanded site, following ministry review and approval, which should include the monitoring program followed at the existing site as well as added monitoring requirements for vegetation surveys, bentheic assessment and enhanced groundwater monitoring. With respect to leachate management and remedial measures, ministry reviewers indicated that more intensive and direct remedial measures than those described in the EA may be required as part of a contingency plan, in the event that the preferred methods cannot address potential non-compliance in a timely fashion.

In response to these concerns, Hanover and Brockton prepared an updated monitoring program, as well as a monitoring schedule, which is included in the amended January 2010 EA. Hanover and Brockton also prepared a contingency plan for groundwater, surface water and landfill gas, which is included in the amended January 2010 EA. The monitoring program includes details of trigger levels and contingency measures to be incorporated into the monitoring programs.

Groundwater modeling

Groundwater modeling was conducted in the October 2009 EA for all of the alternative methods considered with the exception of the preferred alternative. As such, the October 2009 EA did not contain a prediction of how the combination of the existing site and the proposed expansion will impact water quality at the property boundaries, primarily at the Saugeen River.

To address this concern, Hanover and Brockton completed additional modeling for the combined site and the results were submitted to the ministry on January 15, 2010 and are documented in the amended January 2010 EA, in Appendix E. The assessment predicts that groundwater from combined existing site at full development and expansion of the landfill will remain in compliance with ministry criteria. The compliance limits for groundwater discharging to the Saugeen River from the landfill are based on the ministry’s Provincial Water Quality Objectives. For chemicals for which no compliance criteria exist, such as for chloride, ammonia, boron and iron, site-specific criteria have been developed in consultation with the ministry. In the monitoring and contingency plan developed by Hanover and Brockton, they have committed to developing trigger levels for chemicals that indicate the presence of leachate impacts, including chloride, boron, ammonia and phenols. These trigger values are a means of predicting when potential groundwater impacts may occur.

Expansion of an inappropriately located landfill and its impact on water quality, especially the Saugeen River and Marl Creek/Lake

Local residents raised several concerns about the impact of the existing landfill and its expansion on watercourses in the area. Ministry staff have reviewed the EA and do not have outstanding concerns about the proposed undertaking being able to meet the ministry’s compliance standards or potential impacts being managed through a monitoring program and contingency plan. The approach being applied by the proponent for an engineered design will ensure that the expansion can meet ministry standards for surfacewater and groundwater. Ministry reviewers are satisfied that impacts to groundwater located north of the proposed expansion are unlikely due to the southeast downgradient flow of water to the Saugeen River; however, it was recommended by ministry reviewers that long-term well monitoring to the north of the expansion lands be implemented to enable Hanover and Brockton to be able to demonstrate to neighbouring stakeholders whether or not ground water continues to flow south from the site, and whether or not the expansion causes any changes to ground water quality. In the amended January 2010 EA, the monitoring plan includes new monitoring wells to be installed in these areas to address this request.

In relation to surface water concerns, the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority requested that as a condition of approval it be included as a review agency for review of the Surface Water Management Plan.

Landfill gas migration

Ministry technical reviewers indicated that significant concentrations of landfill gas (up to 61 per cent by volume) have been found in shallow soils west of the existing landfill. Elevated concentrations as far as 200 metres from the waste are evidence of significant gas migration. Hanover and Brockton have committed to include a landfill gas collection system during the EPA approval stage. It is recommended by ministry staff that a strategy to deal with landfill gas issues from the proposed expansion and the existing landfill must be incorporated into a Certificate of Approval under the EPA. In the amended January 2010 EA, a monitoring program for landfill gas has been developed.

Proximity to airport and wildlife/bird problems

Concerns were raised by the public about nuisance birds from the landfill being in close proximity to the Saugeen Municipal Airport. The distance from the airport to the west boundary of the landfill is 1175 metres. Transport Canada (TC) recommended to Hanover and Brockton that in general, the impacts from birds should be evaluated for any new landfill development or expansion within 15 kilometres of an airport and that all waste facilities should include the implementation of a bird management plan. TC recommended that the landfill operate as a bird-free site. Hanover and Brockton have committed to the target of having the landfill as a bird free site and have committed to retaining a bird specialist to develop a program that would be submitted as part of the Certificate of Approval application under the EPA.

3.3.2 Conclusion

Hanover and Brockton have provided responses to all comments received, including those not summarized above. All comments and the proponent’s responses are located in Tables 1-3 of this Review. Concerns raised by the ministry, GRT, and the public have been adequately addressed in the amended January 2010 EA. Further discussions with the SON and the MNO are ongoing, from which potential concerns with the proposed undertaking may be identified.

Ministry staff are satisfied that Hanover and Brockton have met the requirements of the ToR and EAA for the components of the EA raised in section 3.3.1 above, as well as those raised in Tables 1–3; however, ministry reviewers will need to review the additional information that was included in the amended January 2010 EA to ensure it satisfies ministry technical comments.

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

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the Hanover/Walkerton Landfill Expansion EA.

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

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

The ministry is satisfied that Hanover and Brockton provided sufficient time and opportunities for the GRT, public, stakeholders, and Aboriginal communities to comment on the October 2009 EA. All of these groups will have an opportunity to comment on the changes made in the amended January 2010 EA during the five-week comment period of the ministry Review. Many concerns raised by the GRT regarding technical issues have been addressed by Hanover and Brockton or a commitment has been made by Hanover and Brockton to address them through additional work that will be completed as part of future approval requirements. A review of the additional information included in the amended January 2010 EA, and of the responses to comments of the government agencies is still required.

If an undertaking is approved under the EAA, there are several standard conditions imposed such as the requirement to conduct and report the results of compliance monitoring and to develop a protocol for responding to complaints received during all the phases of the undertaking.

What happens now

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the ministry Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed.

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

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

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

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

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

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, Hanover and Brockton will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 9.0 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

  • An amended Certificate of Approval under the EPA for the expansion to the existing landfill
  • A Certificate of Approval under the EPA for a Gas Venting System
  • A Certificate of Approval for Stormwater Management Pond under the OWRA
  • A Certificate of Approval under the OWRA for:
    • Leachate Collection system and Storage Tank/pond
    • A Certificate of Approval for a Waste Management System for Leachate Haulage, if done through Town-owned truck
  • Planning Act approval for zoning by-law
  • Permission from the SVCA under Ontario Regulation 169/06—Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation for the proposed stormwater outlet at Marl Creek.

The EA indicates that infrastructure associated with the proposed undertaking includes improvements to the Walkerton and/or Hanover Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) to accept the hauled leachate. Currently, neither WPCP has approval for accepting landfill leachate under the OWRA. An evaluation of leachate management was discussed in Appendix 7, Volume II of the EA. Appropriate Certificates of Approval will be required for changes to either of the WPCP’s under the OWRA. In order to obtain a Certificate of Approval for accepting leachate, Hanover and/or Brockton will also have to demonstrate that the WPCP’s are capable of meeting CofA requirements, including having the capacity to accept and treat the hauled leachate and that the facility will maintain an acceptable ratio of leachate to sewage.

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

Public record locations

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

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

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

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

Town of Hanover Municipal Office
341 10th Street
Hanover, Ontario
N4N 1P5

Ministry of the Environment
Owen Sound District Office
1580-20th Street East
P.O. Box 967
Owen Sound, Ontario
N4K 6H6

Municipality of Brockton
100 Scott Street
Walkerton, Ontario
N0G 2V0

Ministry of the Environment
London Regional Office
733 Exeter Road, 2nd floor
London, Ontario
N6E 1L3

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending March 26, 2010 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

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

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Hanover/Walkerton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment
Attention: Alissa Sugar, Special Project Officer

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

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

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

Appendix B: Submissions received during initial comment period

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