Executive Summary

Who

Niagara Region (Region)

What

Ministry Review (Review) of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes:

  • A vertical expansion of the existing landfill site with a uniform increase of 6 m along the eastern and central sections of the site, and a peak increase of 16 m formed in the western section. No change is proposed to the footprint of the fill or site area.
  • The Region is seeking approval for an increase of 2.4 million m3 of capacity (25 years of additional capacity) for solid non-hazardous waste, post-diversion, including final cover.

When

EA Submitted: June 5, 2015.

Ministry Review comment period: September 11 – October 16, 2015.

Where

The landfill is located at 700 Humberstone Road in the City of Welland, Niagara Region. The landfill site has a 37.8 ha fill area on a 62.1 ha site, with 2.2 million m3 of capacity.

Why

The Region has estimated that the landfill will exceed its current approved capacity by 2016. It is estimated that the Region needs an additional 2.4 million m3 to continue servicing southern Niagara over the next 25 years.

Conclusions

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

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
Voice: 416-314-8001/1-800-461-6290
Fax: 416-314-8452

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

Regional Municipality of Niagara
Clerk’s Department
2201 St. David’s Road
Thorold, Ontario
L2V 4T7

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Niagara District Office
203 St. Paul Street, Floor 9
St. Catharines, Ontario
L2R 7R4

City of Welland
Clerk’s Department
60 Main Street East
Welland, Ontario
L3B 6J1

Welland Public Library
50 The Boardwalk
Welland, Ontario
L3B 6J1

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was August 28, 2015. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

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

Making a Submission?

A five-week public review period ending October 16, 2015 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: Humberstone Landfill Expansion

Attention: Sasha McLeod, 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.

Environmental Assessment Process

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

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

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

1.1 Terms of Reference

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

On November 7, 2013, the Minister approved Niagara Region’s (Region/the proponent) ToR for the proposed Humberstone Landfill Expansion. The ToR established the rationale for expanding the existing landfill. The ToR stated that the EA would be prepared in accordance with Section 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EAA, thus enabling the Region to focus the EA and alternatives to address specifically vertical expansion of the landfill. The ToR set out how the Region would assess alternative methods for carrying out the proposed undertaking, assess environmental effects and consult with the public, government agencies and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the EA. 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 June 5, 2015, the Region submitted its EA titled Proposed Expansion of the Humberstone Landfill. The Region is seeking approval for 2.4 million m3 of additional airspace capacity for residual (post-diversion) solid non-hazardous (domestic, commercial and industrial) waste in the Region of Niagara. This would provide approximately 25 years of additional capacity. This additional capacity is proposed through a vertical expansion of the landfill, with no proposed changes to the landfill footprint. The EA comment period ended on July 24, 2015.

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 the information and conclusions of the EA were valid based on their agencies' mandates. The EA was also circulated to interested members of the public and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities for an opportunity to review and comment on the EA. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the 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 has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the EAA and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

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

The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change 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 has been published in the Welland Tribune in English and the Hamilton Le Regional in French indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period from September 11, 2015 to October 16, 2015. Copies of the Review have been placed in five public record locations, 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 also received copies of the Review.

The Proposed Undertaking

2.1 Background

Landfill Site and Vicinity

The Region owns and operates the Humberstone Landfill located at 700 Humberstone Road in the City of Welland, Ontario (Figure 4). Disposal of waste began at the landfill in the 1940s and has continued since. The site accepts domestic, commercial and non-hazardous solid industrial waste from primarily four municipalities: Township of Wainfleet, City of Welland, City of Port Colborne, and Town of Fort Erie, though the landfill is available to other parts of the Niagara Region under certain circumstances. The fill area occupies 37.8 hectares of a 62.1 hectare site (Figure 1). Currently licenced under Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) A120401, the landfill is approved to accept 700 tonnes of waste per day to a capacity of 2.2 million m3, with an estimated site life to 2016.

The major site components at the landfill include: the licenced waste disposal area, a perimeter leachate collection system, a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) containment cell, four stormwater management ponds and a landfill gas collection and control system. Construction of the landfill gas collection and control system, which was approved by then Ministry of the Environment, began in 2013 and will be completed over several phases. The collected leachate is treated at the Welland Wastewater Treatment Plant, 5.5 kilometres away, via a direct connection to the municipal sewer. The current site operations include an annual monitoring program for groundwater, surface water and leachate.

The surrounding land uses include a provincially significant wetland (PSW) and a city park to the north, a surface drainage outlet to the east, CN Rail lands and PSW to the southwest and the township boundary to the west. Land uses in the site-vicinity include a mix of residential, light industrial, and environmental protection lands. The lands directly west of the site are zoned agricultural.

Groundwater flow direction in the site-vicinity study area is downward through un-weathered clay towards the bedrock aquifer. Vertical groundwater movement from the base of the waste through the clay towards the bedrock aquifer is estimated to be slow at approximately 10-9 metres per second (i.e. millimetres per year). Groundwater flow in the bedrock is interpreted to be in an easterly direction at a slow pace. The upper weathered zone of the clay is fractured and is the principal zone for horizontal groundwater movement.

The main surface water feature in the area is the Welland River located about 600 metres to the north of the Humberstone Landfill. Drainage from the site enters the Welland River via the Brown Tap Drain. The landfill site is located within the ministry’s Niagara Peninsula Source Water Protection Region, five kilometres from the Welland Water Treatment Plant.

The Niagara Central Airport is located four kilometres to the west of the site, and provides services to Niagara Region. The Region has determined that the expansion and continued operation of the site will not pose a risk to the airport.

Existing vegetation acts to screen the waste mound from the surrounding sites. In 2012, a new berm was constructed north of the Humberstone Landfill to provide further screening of the landfill from St. George Park.

Regional Waste Management Context

The Region uses three landfills to dispose of residual wastes: Niagara Road 12 Landfill in the Township of West Lincoln, which services the northwestern part of the Region; the Niagara Waste Systems Ltd. Landfill in the City of Niagara Falls, which services the northeastern part of the Region; and the Humberstone Landfill, which services the southern portion of the Region. This system of three landfills reduces transportation of waste throughout the Region and provides an efficient service level and cost-effective local waste management solution.

Waste Diversion

In addition to operating its waste disposal facilities, the Region is committed to waste diversion. The Region is currently achieving a residential diversion rate of 51.8%, while the Region’s target is 65% residential waste diversion by 2020. To help achieve this target, the Region runs a number of waste diversion strategies, including public education; subsidized home composters; collection of electronics, batteries, tires, scrap metals, clothing and construction/demolition material; green cart organics collection; and blue and grey boxes.

In addition to these programs, the Region is continually investigating opportunities to divert material from landfills, including point source reduction programs; additional recycling depots; and ongoing pilot projects for increasing diversion of recyclables from residential users.

2.2 Description of the Preferred Undertaking

The Region identified three alternative methods of expanding the landfill and five alternative methods of treating the leachate generated.

The preferred method of expanding the fill area would result in a peak towards the western edge of the site (Figure 2). It includes a uniform increase of 6 metres to the height of the waste mound in the central and eastern portions of the landfill and a 16 metre height increase in the western portion of the landfill. The expansion is proposed to be undertaken in eight phases, with each phase taking approximately 3-5 years.

The preferred method of treating the leachate is to use the existing Welland Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) via a 5.5km municipal sewer connection. The plant currently receives an average wastewater flow of 40,600 m3 per day or 74% of rated capacity. The estimated current and future leachate volume generated by the Humberstone Landfill of 160,000 m3 per year represents 1.1% of the total yearly flow currently processed by the WWTP.

The expansion would require the Region to plant trees on top of the constructed berm in order to mitigate the visual impact of the higher western mound in St. George Park. The Region would also need to modify the currently approved landfill gas collection and control system and two of the stormwater management ponds to accommodate the expansion. All other site infrastructure would remain unchanged.

If EAA approval is granted, the 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, the Region must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Figure 1: Map showing the location of the Humberstone landfill and surrounding 500m site-vicinity study area, as well as adjacent water bodies and municipal boundaries.

Map showing the location of the Humberstone landfill and surrounding 500m site-vicinity study area, as well as adjacent water bodies and municipal boundaries.

Figure 2: Figure shows aerial view of the landfill study area, property boundaries, and maximum/minimum elevation measurements.

Figure shows aerial view of the landfill study area, property boundaries, and maximum/minimum elevation measurements.

Figure 3: Figures show landfill cross-sections and elevation measurements when viewed from various directions.

Figures show landfill cross-sections and elevation measurements when viewed from various directions.

Figure 4: Map of the area surrounding the landfill site, including the communities of Welland and Port Colborne.

Map of the area surrounding the landfill site, including the communities of Welland and Port Colborne.

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 has concluded the EA followed the framework outlined in the ToR, and has addressed the commitments made in the ToR. In addition, the EA has satisfied the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act.

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. Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and potentially affected 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. The Region may also continue consulting with stakeholders after submission of the EA in order to respond to any additional questions or issues.

A summary of the consultation that was conducted during the EA process is provided in the remainder of Section 3.1.2 below.

All comments received by the ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to the Region for a response. A summary of key issues raised can be found in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.3.1 of this Review. Summaries of the all comments received along with the Region’s responses are included in Tables 1 to 3. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B.

The ministry is satisfied with the level of consultation undertaken by the Region and the documentation of consultation provided in the EA report. The EA adequately describes the consultation that was undertaken and the outcomes of the various consultation activities. The Region’s consultation activities are described in Section 3 of the EA report and in Volume 2 (Record of Consultation) of the EA.

Government Review Team

During the preparation of the EA, the Region sought input from members of the GRT including provincial ministries, federal departments and municipal agencies. This outreach was to identify: those regulatory and government agencies that may have a potential interest in or mandate related to the proposed undertaking; any approvals or permit requirements administered under their respective jurisdictional authorities; and any potential concerns about the proposed undertaking.

The Region consulted the GRT through a variety of means including telephone calls, written and electronic correspondence and formal meetings. A summary of the consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA with members of the GRT, the comments received and the Region’s responses to them can be found in Section 3 and Volume 2 of the EA.

A draft version of the EA was made available to the GRT for review during a five‑week comment period between January 29 and March 5, 2015. Following formal submission of the EA to the ministry, GRT members from various agencies were provided copies of the EA for their review during the seven-week comment period, which began June 19, 2015 and ended July 24, 2015. All comments received were forwarded by the ministry to the Region for a response.

Public Consultation

Members of the public, which includes the general public, communities, local organizations, interest groups and property owners, were provided with several opportunities to participate and provide input during the preparation of the EA. The Region established and maintained a contact list and carried out consultation in a variety of ways, including holding four public open houses; establishing an EA Advisory Group (EAAG) and holding four EAAG meetings; direct written correspondence; newspaper notifications of EA milestones and consultation opportunities; hosting site tours; and posting information and materials to a project website.

The objective of public consultation was 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, the comments received and the Region’s responses to them can be found in Section 3 and Volume 2 of the EA.

A draft version of the EA was made available to the public for review and comments during a five‑week comment period between January 29 and March 5, 2015. Members of the public were also provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the EA during the seven-week inspection period that commenced with the formal submission of the EA on June 19, 2015. The inspection period was coordinated by the ministry and members of the public were asked to provide any comments directly to the ministry for consideration.

During the formal comment period on the EA, comments from three stakeholders or members of the public were received by the ministry. Refer to Section 3.3.1 of this Review for the key issues raised. As with the comments received from the GRT, the ministry forwarded all public comments to the Region for a response.

Aboriginal Community Consultation

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

During preparation of the EA, the Region sought advice from the ministry to identify potentially affected Aboriginal communities. These communities were provided opportunities to participate throughout the EA process and were consulted and engaged to different degrees depending on the province’s preliminary assessment of the extent to which the project could potentially impact their asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights.

The Region focused its consultation efforts on those potentially affected and interested communities and organizations:

  • Six Nations of the Grand River (Elected Council)
  • Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (represented by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute)
  • Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation
  • Niagara Region Métis Council
  • Métis Nation of Ontario

These Aboriginal communities and organizations were consulted throughout the preparation of the EA, beginning at ToR preparation, through a number of different methods. The Region consulted through direct written correspondence to inform of consultation opportunities, public open houses and key milestones during the EA process, meetings and site tours with interested communities. A summary of the Aboriginal consultation process can be found in Section 3 of the EA, with more details in Volume 2 (Record of Consultation).

During the seven-week inspection period on the final EA, Six Nations of the Grand River provided a letter to the ministry indicating that they did not have any comments on the proposed undertaking. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation indicated to the ministry by phone that they did not have any comments. The Haudenosaunee Development Institute provided a letter to the ministry indicating the project will negatively impact on treaty rights and the duty to consult requirements have not been met. A summary of the comments received from Aboriginal communities are in Section 3.3.1 of this Review, with more details in Table 3.

Ministry Conclusions on the Consultation Program

Overall, the ministry is satisfied that the Region appropriately carried out the consultation plan that was outlined in the approved ToR. Further, the ministry believes that the Region provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA.

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

3.1.3 Conclusion

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

3.2 EA Process

EA is a planning process that requires a proponent to identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the potential effects of those alternatives against select criteria and then select a preferred alternative. In general, the Region followed a logical and transparent decision making process that was outlined in the EA. Below is a summary of the Region’s EA methodology, including the study areas used and the methodology for assessing alternatives and environmental effects. Refer to Appendix A of this Review for the ministry’s analysis of how the EA met the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR.

The evaluation of alternatives in the EA consisted of:

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

In the ToR, the Region identified that it would undertake a focused EA to evaluate vertical expansion of the landfill and would not consider horizontal expansion nor alternatives to expansion, such as creating a new landfill or alternative disposal technology. The ToR established the rationale for focusing the EA by summarizing previous studies between 1995 and 2007 that support the preferred alternative for vertical expansion. The ToR also established the rationale for not conducting archaeological screening, traffic studies or bird hazard assessment during the EA due to the focus on vertical expansion and the limited operational changes proposed as part of the project.

The EA assessed alternative methods for vertically expanding the landfill and alternative methods for leachate treatment, per the approved ToR.

Study Area

The study areas for the EA process comprised the on-site study area and site-vicinity study area extending to a 500 metre buffer zone surrounding the site boundary (Figure 1). The site-vicinity study area was modified or extended for individual environmental components as appropriate, for example the surface water study area was extended to characterize existing conditions in the context of the watershed level.

The ministry’s Source Protection Programs Branch indicated at the ToR stage that there are no concerns related to source water protection since the Intake Protection Zone for the Welland Water Treatment Plant is five kilometres from the existing landfill, and the vulnerability scoring for the Intake Protection Zone is low with no significant threats identified.

Assessment of Alternative Methods and Environmental Effects

The Region identified seven environmental components to be assessed as part of the EA: atmosphere; geology and hydrogeology; surface water; biology; land use; cultural heritage resources; and socio-economic components. These components were used to assess the impacts of each alternative method, and to develop appropriate mitigation measures.

Assessment of Alternative Methods

The methodology for assessment of alternative methods for expansion of the fill area and alternative methods for treatment of the leachate generated was conducted in two parts. The first part identified the alternative methods of expanding the landfill; characterized the existing environmental conditions; and identified the potential environmental effects from each alternative method.

The second part of the assessment process was used to select the preferred alternative method by determining the mitigation measures and net effects of each proposal; and comparing the alternative methods to determine a preferred option for landfill expansion. This was followed by evaluating and identifying alternative methods for leachate treatment for the preferred expansion method, including the consideration of potential effects and mitigation measures. The Region then described the preferred method of landfill expansion (higher mound in the west) and leachate treatment (continued conveyance to the Welland Wastewater Treatment Plant) as well as the need for any additional mitigation or monitoring.

Environmental Effects

The assessment of air quality focused on predicting changes in the concentrations of selected indicator components. The Region assessed noise using sensitive receptors and comparing modelled results to ministry standards.

The assessment of geological and hydrogeological components involved reviewing previous groundwater monitoring results in the study area, estimating leachate generation and developing predictions for potential impacts. Surface water quality and quantity were assessed through a review of existing flow data, modelling surface water runoff and predicting peak flow and quality conditions for the alternatives.

The assessment of biological and ecosystem impacts utilized a data review including published information, visual surveys and mapping of biological components, as well as results of surface water assessments, to quantify and assess potential impacts to aquatic biota, fish habitat, vegetation communities and wildlife habitat. Land use impacts involved examining the City of Welland Official Plan and relevant zoning bylaws; and, a review of secondary sources was conducted to examine impacts to cultural, built and natural heritage resources.

The socioeconomic assessment involved reviewing information related to the need for continued operation of the landfill site to satisfy resident waste disposal demands, potential effects related to the Niagara Central Airport (i.e. effects on gulls), and potential impacts to landscapes and views. The assessment of landscape appearance and views from St. George Park were a critical component of determining the preferred alternative of expanding the landfill.

3.2.1 Key Issues

Key issues regarding the EA process completed by the Region for the Humberstone Landfill Expansion were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. These submissions can be found in Appendix B. All comments, including the Region’s responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 -3.

Through the review of the final EA, staff from the ministry determined whether or not the Region followed the EA process, and have incorporated the commitments in the approved ToR into the final EA that was submitted for review and a decision. No GRT, public or Aboriginal comments were received on the final EA with regards to the EA process. Ministry staff have concluded that there are no key issues with the Region’s EA planning process for the proposed project.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the Region’s decision making process. The EA contains an explanation of the problem that prompted the EA. The Region considered a reasonable range of alternative methods to the undertaking and evaluated them in a defined study area that took into consideration the EAA's broad definition of the environment.

The EA provides a description of the potentially affected environment in the study areas and identifies potential effects of the alternatives. The EA also includes monitoring and contingency plans (such as surface and groundwater monitoring and contingency) to ensure any potential negative impacts of the undertaking are minimized.

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

3.3 Proposed Undertaking

The proposed undertaking is described in Section 8 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. The proposed undertaking is to vertically expand the landfill, resulting in the addition of 2.4 million m3 of fill area. The Region has selected preferred methods of expanding the landfill and treating the leachate.

3.3.1 Key Issues

Key issues regarding the EA process completed by the Region for the Humberstone Landfill Expansion were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. Key issues that were raised are summarized below. The original submissions can be found in Appendix B. All comments, including the Region’s responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 – 3.

Leachate Mound

Ministry staff requested clarification about the potential for the height of the present leachate mound underneath the waste to increase, as a leachate mound can decrease the shear strength of the waste. The Region responded that the increasing density of the waste over time, and the associated potential relatively small decrease in its permeability, is not expected to change the leachate mound significantly. The shear strength properties of the waste used for the stability analysis are considered appropriate.

In light of the above analysis and the information contained in the EA, the ministry has no outstanding concerns with respect to potential changes to the leachate mound under an expanded landfill.

Climate Change and Provincially Significant Wetland

Ministry staff raised a concern about the potential for failure of the increased slope of the expanded landfill and how this may impact the adjacent PSW in the event of an extreme weather event due to climate change. The Region responded that most of the precipitation from high intensity events will runoff the landfill rather than infiltrate into the waste. The Region further stated that as the height of the landfill progresses, the side slopes will be progressively finished and re-vegetated to encourage runoff, and the working face area will be kept to a minimum, which will also reduce unfinished areas available for infiltration. In response to the comment, the Region ran a slope stability model to simulate saturated conditions as suggested. The model resulted in a safety factor of 1.3, which is considered acceptable, especially for short-term conditions.

The ministry discussed this comment and response with the Region in July 2015. Following this discussion, the ministry recommended that the ECA application for the landfill include an evaluation of the landfill’s vulnerability to extreme weather events, mitigation and adaptation measures, a monitoring plan and periodic re-evaluation of the above measures. The Region responded that further study of extreme weather is unnecessary based on a safety factor of 1.3 when the landfill mound would be submerged in a flood scenario. Leachate seep inspections will continue to occur on a monthly basis to identify potential areas of concerns in the waste mound.

Ministry staff requested additional consideration of potential climate change impacts (e.g. extreme changes in temperature or precipitation) and the Region’s mitigation or adaptation strategies for such impacts. Staff also requested more information about the expected landfill gas capture from its landfill gas collection and control system. The Region added a more detailed qualitative and quantitative discussion in its final EA related to climate change adaptation and greenhouse gas mitigation. The EA indicates that the Region has been implementing and will continue to implement best management practices plans, which are flexible to adapt to a changing climate. The EA also indicates that the landfill gas collection and control system is expected to capture 75% of landfill greenhouse gas emissions, thus providing a large portion of greenhouse gas mitigation.

The ministry was satisfied with the responses and has no outstanding concerns regarding slope failure or climate change in relation to the expanded landfill.

Wastewater Treatment

The Welland River Keepers stated concern about the capacity of the Welland Wastewater Treatment Plant to treat the landfill’s wastewater in the event that the treatment plant becomes overloaded. The Region responded that upgrades are being completed this year to the Welland Wastewater Treatment Plant including a new phosphorous removal system. In addition, the Region is examining opportunities for upgrades to current infrastructure to reduce the number of overflow incidents. These incidents are caused by peak flow scenarios when the level of surface water runoff and wastewater effluent exceeds the capacity of the treatment facility. This scenario results in minor discharges of untreated effluent. The ministry also notes that the EA indicates that the treatment plant currently accepts an average of 74% of its rated capacity and that the estimated current and future leachate volume of the landfill represents 1.1% of the total yearly flow currently processed by the treatment plant.

In light of the above analysis and the information contained in the EA, the ministry has no outstanding concerns with respect to the capacity for the Welland Wastewater Treatment Plant to treat the leachate generated by the landfill.

Odour

A member of the public stated concern about the effect of emissions of strong odours from the landfill site to the surrounding residential areas. The Region responded that after multiple odour studies, the source of emissions was identified to be nearby commercial and agricultural operations, and not from landfill operations. The ministry also notes that the EA states there have seldom been odour complaints received to date through the Region’s complaints protocol associated with day to day landfill operational activities.

In light of the above analysis and the information contained in the EA, the ministry has no outstanding concerns related to potential odour impacts from the proposed expansion.

Views from St. George Park

A member of the public commented stated concern about the landfill expansion due to impacts to views from St. George Park to the north of the site. The Region responded that the alternative expansion method selected will minimize the visual impact on St. George Park. The ministry notes that the EA specifies that as a mitigation measure for impacted views, the Region will be planting coniferous trees on the existing berm that are expected to block the view of the increased height of the expanded landfill.

In light of the above and the information contained in the EA, the ministry has no outstanding concerns with potential impacts to views from St. George Park.

There were no outstanding concerns from GRT technical reviewers related to groundwater, surface water, wastewater, air, noise/vibration, operational compliance, biology, cultural heritage or agriculture.

Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) submitted comments to the ministry on July 16, 2015. Their letter raised concerns over the impact to treaty rights as well as the Region and ministry not engaging with HDI on the proposed project. There were no concerns raised by any other Aboriginal communities.

Monitoring Programs

The Region has committed to continue its existing monitoring plans for groundwater, surface water, leachate, gull management and post-closure vegetation monitoring. The Region will implement a monitoring plan following the installation of the vegetative plantings proposed to screen the views of the landfilling operations from St. George Park. The Region also commits to continue its contingency plans for groundwater and surface water.

The ministry is satisfied with the monitoring program as proposed in the EA, subject to additional approvals that may be required for the expansion.

3.3.2 Conclusion

The Region has provided responses to all comments received, including those not detailed above. A summary of all comments and the Region’s responses are located in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of this Review.

Ministry staff are satisfied that the Region has met the requirements of the ToR and EAA for the components of the EA raised in Section 3.3.1 above, as well as those raised in Tables 1, 2 and 3.

The ministry is also satisfied that the proposed vertical expansion of the landfill 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 the Region in support of future approval applications, if the EA is approved.

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

Summary of the Ministry Review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis of the Region’s EA for the vertical expansion of the Humberstone Landfill.

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

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

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

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

What Happens Now?

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the 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, the Region will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 10.3 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

  • O. Reg. 232/98 Environmental Compliance Approval related to waste management
  • Ontario Water Resources Act Section 53 application related to sewage works
  • O. Reg. 163/06 Conservation Authorities Watercourse permit (if identified by the conservation authority

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 approval is granted. Any proposed change to the undertaking would have to be considered in the context of the EAA and Ontario Regulation 101/07 (Waste Management Projects) and any environmental assessment requirements met before any change to the undertaking can be implemented.

Appendices

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act Requirements

EA Decision Making ProcessEAA and ToR RequirementsDescription and Characteristics of the RequirementsAnalysis of the EA

Problem / Opportunities

Identify an existing problem or opportunity

Purpose of the Undertaking:

s.6.1(2)(a)

ToR s. 1.2 and 3.3

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.

Complete.

Section 1.2 describes the need for and description of the undertaking, that being the landfill will run out of capacity in 2016 and an additional 2.4 M m3 (25 years) of capacity is required in order to address Niagara Region’s long-term waste disposal needs for south Niagara’s area municipalities.

Section 1.4 contains the purpose of the undertaking, which is to provide environmentally safe and cost effective disposal capacity for the southern part of Niagara region for 25 years or more, thus maintaining the Region’s long-term disposal plan.

Alternatives

Description and Statement of the Rationale for the Alternatives to:

Alternative to s.6.1(2)(b)(iii)

ToR s. 2.5, 4.0 and 4.3

"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.

Complete.

Sections 1.3 and 1.3.1 describe the intent and rationale to focus the EA on Alternatives To, per the approved ToR.

The EA focuses on considering one Alternative To – vertical expansion. The EA also focuses on assessing Alternative Methods for landfill expansion and Alternative Methods for leachate treatment (see below).

Alternatives

Description and Statement of the Rationale for the Alternatives methods:

Alternative Methods s.6.1(2)(b)(ii)

ToR s. 5.0

"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.

Complete.

Sections 1.3.2-1.3.4 describe the rationale for focusing on Alternative Methods and EA Studies for landfill expansion and leachate treatment, including over 10 years of past planning studies for waste management in the region pointing to landfill expansion as the preferred solution.

Section 4 describes the Alternative Methods – 3 for landfill expansion and 5 for leachate treatment.

Landfill expansion:

  1. Uniform height increase
  2. Higher at west (preferred)
  3. Saddle-shaped

Leachate treatment alternatives:

  1. Continued use of Welland WWTP in City of Welland (preferred)
  2. Use of Niagara Region (Stanley) WWTP in City of Niagara Falls
  3. Use of Niagara Region (Seaway) WWTP in City of Port Colborne
  4. Use of Niagara Region (Anger) WWTP in Town of Fort Erie
  5. On-site treatment with discharge to local surface water receiver

Landfill Expansion Alternatives

Section 6 compares landfill expansion alternatives based on environmental components and includes advantages and disadvantages of each alternative for each environmental component

  • The following 7 environmental components were used in the assessment: atmosphere, geology and hydrogeology, surface water, biology, land use, culture, and socio-economic
  • 14 environmental sub-components are used
  • Table 6.1-1 summarizes potential effects of the alternatives to each environmental subcomponents

Alternatives were comparatively assessed qualitatively and quantitatively and compared using ranks and weights, with weightings determined from public input.

As noted in section 6.1, key advantages to the preferred landfill expansion (Alt 2, highest in west) were that equipment will operate next to closest receptors for shortest period of time, views from St George Park can be entirely mitigated, and least potential for shadowing or obstructing views of Feeder Canal.

Leachate Treatment Alternatives

Section 7 and Table 7.5-1 compare leachate treatment alternatives, using the preferred landfill expansion alternative (Alt 2), based on criteria including technical feasibility, environmental (sewage conveyance, air quality, odour, surface water) and required approvals.

  • Alt 1 (Welland WWTP) preferred due to treatment processes at the plant, expected leachate concentrations, and dilution ration (landfill effluent is 1.1% of total inflow to WWTP)

Preferred Alternatives

Section 8 describes the preferred undertaking (preferred landfill expansion and leachate treatment methods).

  • Landfill expansion: Alt 2 (higher (16 m) west side and uniform (6 m) increases to central and east sides)
  • Leachate treatment: Alt 1 (continue to collect leachate in LCS and convey to sewer drains to Welland WWTP)

Evaluation

Description of the Environment

s.6.1(2)(c)(i)

ToR s. 7.0

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.

Complete.

The study areas are defined in section 2.1.3, Figure 2.1-1 and Table 2.1-1.

3 study areas used: on-site (within landfill property boundary), site-vicinity (within 500 m of landfill property line) and extended study areas for certain environmental components (atmosphere, geology and hydrogeology, surface water, culture and socio-economic).

Section 5 describes the existing environment potentially affected by the project or alternatives (natural, social, cultural, economic).

Evaluation

Description of Potential Environmental Effects s.6.1(2)(c)(ii)

ToR s. 6.0

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.

Complete.

Section 9 predicts and assesses environmental effects for each environmental subcomponent, using indicators.

Evaluation

Description of the Actions Necessary to Prevent, Change, Mitigate or Remedy the Environmental Effects

s.6.1(2)(c)(iii)

ToR s. 6.0

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.

Complete.

Section 9 contains mitigation measures for the predicted environmental effects (primarily screening views from St George Park using trees and berms).

Evaluation

Evaluation of Advantages and Disadvantages to the Environment

s.6.1(2)(d)

ToR s. 5.0

The preferred alternative should be identified through this evaluation.

Complete.

Section 6 contains advantages and disadvantages of each landfill expansion alternative method based on environmental components.

Section 7 compares the leachate treatment alternative methods through in part identifying advantages and disadvantages.

Evaluation

Description of Consultation with Interested Stakeholders

s.6.1(2)(e)

ToR s. 8.0

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.

Complete.

Section 3 describes the proponent’s consultation methods and activities for the EA, and Volume 2 contains the Record of Consultation.

Consultation activities included:

  • Draft EA 5-week public comment period
  • 4 open houses
  • 4 EA Advisory Group meetings
  • Meetings and correspondence with public, GRT, Aboriginal groups, community organizations, local businesses and local politicians
  • Newspaper notices
  • Project website
  • Media release

Sections 3.4 and 3.8 describes Aboriginal consultation activities, which included:

  • Draft EA comment period
  • Meetings
  • Site tours
  • Letters and correspondence

Selection Process

Proposed Undertaking

Description and Statement of the Rationale for the undertaking

s.6.1(2)(b)(i)

ToR s. 5.0

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.

Complete.

Section 8 describes the preferred undertaking (preferred landfill expansion and leachate treatment methods), as well as in-design mitigation measure and project phasing.

Next Steps and Additional Commitments

Additional ToR Commitments

ToR s. 11.0

Outline any further commitments made by the proponent in the ToR.

Complete.

Section 11 (Tables 11-1 and 11-2) contains summary of commitments made during ToR as well as commitments to mitigation, monitoring and compensation made during EA.

Section 10 describes monitoring plans for relevant environmental disciplines, such as groundwater and surface water, leachate, terrestrial ecosystems, service to residents and landscape and views.

Next Steps and Additional Commitments

Additional Approvals

ToR s. 9.0

Outline additional approval requirements. Provide sufficient detail about the nature of the approval.

Complete.

Section 10.3 outlines other regulatory approvals required for the landfill expansion (ECAs under the EPA and OWRA and, if required, conservation authority approval).

Appendix B: Submissions Received During Initial Comment Period

Contents are available in hard copy at:

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor
Toronto, Ontario
Voice: 416-314-8001/1-800-461-6290
Fax: 416-314-8452

Table 1. Government Review Team Comment Summary Table

Proposal: Humberstone Landfill Expansion (EA)

Proponent:Regional Municipality of Niagara (Region)

SubmitterSummary of CommentsProponent’s ResponseStatus

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC)

Environmental Approvals Branch, Project Coordination Unit

Table 9.1-6 lists the LFG flare as a source of GHG emissions, however the paragraph under Table 9.1-7 says, "During post-closure and closure (assumed from 2042-2165), the collection and flaring of the LFG will continue to provide GHG reductions at an average of 15,854 tonnes CO2e per year." Can landfill gas flaring be both a source and reducer of GHGs at the same time?

Yes, a source of emissions can serve to reduce GHG emissions from the entire project while still emitting some GHG emissions itself. In this case, through the landfill gas collection and control system (LGCCS) the flare receives the landfill gas that would otherwise have been emitted from the landfill as methane, (which has a global warming potential 21 times higher than CO2 as per Ontario Regulation 452/09), and combusts the gas, generating emissions primarily in the form of CO2. This is as shown in Table 9.1.6, where the LFG flare is shown to annually emit 9,307 tonnes of CO2 and only 0.2 tonnes of methane.

The ministry is satisfied.

Environmental Approvals Branch, Project Coordination Unit

The same sentence mentioned in 1, "During post-closure and closure (assumed from 2042-2165), the collection and flaring of the LFG will continue to provide GHG reductions at an average of 15,854 tonnes CO2e per year," suggests that closure is 123 years (2042-2165). Does this mean the plan is for the Region to manage the LGCCS all this time?

Based on the LandGEM model, the closure and post-closure phases of the landfill will occur from 2042-2165, although the generation rate is expected to decline significantly after about 2086. In order to present values on an annual basis, the overall emission reductions for the project were divided by the closure and post-closure period (2042-2165). The actual duration of the operation of the LGCCS will depend on the actual post-closure period over which a sufficient quantity of LG generation continues to warrant collection and flaring.

The ministry is satisfied.

Environmental Approvals Branch, Project Coordination Unit

Refer to the sentence, "This assessment indicated that the LGCCS will result in an average reduction of GHG emissions per year over the 25 year operational life of the landfill expansion project of approximately 71,085 tonnes CO2e." Can you please clarify where this figure came from? It doesn’t appear to come from the preceding tables on 9-12.

The value of 71,085 tonnes CO2e representing the reduction of GHG emissions was determined by calculating the amount of emissions from the site if there was no flare (98,315 tonnes CO2e) and subtracting the amount of emissions from the site with the flare (27,230 tonnes CO2e).

The ministry is satisfied.

Environmental Approvals Branch, Project Coordination Unit

Is there a specific target for that referenced in the sentence, "One of the objectives of reducing GHG emissions is working towards achieving a target for the region?"

As per Niagara Region’s Corporate Climate Change Action Plan (January, 2013), the target for the Region is to have "0% growth in GHG Emissions levels in 2016 from the 2006 baseline" and further the Region is working towards reducing its GHG Emissions by 10-15% from the 2006 baseline by 2020".

The ministry is satisfied.

Environmental Approvals Branch, Waste Reviewer

During the evaluation process of the alternatives to landfilling, Niagara Region did not consider the safety aspects of slope failure during the operations stage when potential extreme weather events occur due to climate change (e.g. high intensity atmospheric precipitation following prolonged periods of atmospheric precipitation). There are potential for saturated waste conditions that exist in which slope failure can occur during this stage where significant infiltration of precipitation may occur. There is a concern as there is only a 30 m buffer and there is a PSW bordering the landfill and the height of the waste mound is 27 m. Has the Region determined that factor of safety for slope failure under "saturated" waste conditions?   What are your mitigation measures to avoid such failures?

Also, when municipal waste is delivered to a landfill it is typically at moisture content less than its field moisture capacity (FMC). As such, infiltrating precipitation will initially be absorbed by the waste until its FMC is reached, and the precipitation will then infiltrate deeper into the waste. For all of these reasons, it is not expected that the full thickness of waste will become saturated, i.e., with the leachate mound rising to the top and side surfaces of the waste.

To simulate saturated conditions as suggested, the slope stability model would need to be run with the mounded water table elevated to the top of the waste pile. This is not typically done for the reasons provided above, as the waste is considered a relatively free draining material. However, in response to the comment, the model was run with the water table elevated to the top of the waste pile as a check and resulted in a factor of safety of 1.3, which is considered acceptable, especially for short term conditions.

The ministry is satisfied.

Environmental Approvals Branch, Waste Reviewer

Alternative 2- 4:1 about 20 m and then sloped at 5% to 28 m high, the F. of safety is 1.5 for static loading; 1.4 seismic loading. Slope on the north side (where PSW is) is 10:1 at the top. How does this change the Factor of safety?

As part of the geotechnical analysis, both cases (the 10H:1V and 20H:1V top slopes) were assessed, with both resulting in a factor of safety of 1.5. In the report, the 20H:1V slope was shown as it had a longer slope and is the more critical of the two configurations analysed.

The ministry is satisfied.

Environmental Approvals Branch, Waste Reviewer

Current leachate mound is calculated to be 4.2 m (2016). Will this height increase with increasing weight of waste, increasing density (due to compaction and degradation)?  Leachate mound will decrease the shear strength of the waste.

Mounding of leachate is due to the distance to leachate collection pipes (in this case the perimeter of the waste footprint, which is not changing), the rate of infiltration (which will not change significantly) and the permeability of the base layer (which will not change). The increasing density of the waste over time, and the associated potential relatively small decrease in its permeability, is not expected to change the leachate mound significantly. The shear strength properties of the waste used for the stability analysis are considered appropriate.

The ministry is satisfied.

Environmental Approvals Branch, Waste Reviewer

The description of the proposed undertaking contains sufficient degree of detail, on a conceptual level and the environmental impacts from the proposed waste management activities would comply with the Ministry’s requirements.

Acknowledged.

The ministry is satisfied.

Environmental Approvals Branch, Waste Reviewer

During the evaluation process of the alternatives to landfilling, Niagara Region did not consider the safety aspects of slope failure during the operations stage when potential extreme weather events occur due to climate change (e.g. high intensity atmospheric precipitation following prolonged periods of atmospheric precipitation). There is a concern as there is only a 30 m buffer and there is a PSW bordering the landfill and the height of the waste mound is 27 m. Albeit climate change considerations were not part of the ToR, it is in the best interest of the health and safety of the public and the environment to consider the effects of climate change where required.

Therefore, it is recommended that the following be included in the application for Part V, EPA approval:

  1. An evaluation of the landfills vulnerability to extreme weather events and mitigation and adaptation measures shall be included.
  2. Monitoring plan and periodic re-evaluation of the above measures shall be included.

In the response it was stated (and discussed) with the reviewer that even after the model was run with the position of the water table elevated to the top of the waste, a factor of safety of 1.3 was maintained. As a result, the landfill is expected to maintain a satisfactory factor of safety even during extreme weather. To that end, Niagara Region does not feel that an additional evaluation is warranted.

With respect to monitoring, Niagara Region agrees to continue carrying out leachate seep inspections of the landfill side slopes as discussed. The leachate seep inspections are already completed on a monthly basis. The leachate seep inspections will be included in the monitoring plan developed as part of the ECA application process.

The ministry is satisfied.

Environmental Approvals Branch (wastewater, noise/vibration)

No comments

N/A

N/A

West Central Region (air, groundwater, surface water)

No comments

N/A

N/A

Niagara District Office

No comments

N/A

N/A

Other Ministries and Agencies

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Guelph District

Blanding’s Turtle is known for the areas west of the landfill. Blanding’s Turtle is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the species receives both individual and general habitat protection under the Act. The intent of this recommendation is to ensure that both the species and the operations of the landfill will not be impacted if the turtles inadvertently enter the site (e.g. attempts to nest in suitable areas of the landfill).

It is understood that Niagara Region will review the existing fencing for the purposes of discouraging turtles from accessing the site. Additional upgrades to the fence will also be added if required. This response is provided in Section E3.0 – Comment Response Table in the EA Report (Volume 2).

MNRF staff appreciates the project team’s attention to this recommendation. It may however, be appropriate to also summarize this response in Volume 1 of the EA Report.  

Niagara Region is planning to do the work requested by MNRF this year along with other fencing work required at the Site.

The ministry is satisfied.

Ministry of Energy

No comments

N/A

N/A

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

No comments

N/A

N/A

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

No comments

N/A

N/A

Table 2. Public Comment Summary Table

Proposal: Humberstone Landfill Expansion (EA)

Proponent:Regional Municipality of Niagara (Region)

SubmitterSummary of CommentsProponent’s ResponseStatus

Member of the Public

My email is in regards to the proposed expansion of the Humberstone Landfill in Welland. I'm writing to tell you that I am very much opposed to the idea of an expansion. The odours the dump emits on the surrounding residential areas is offensive and makes our backyards useless. Some days/nights we can't have our windows open because the smell is so bad. Thanks for taking the time to read my concerns. Please don't expand the dump.

The Region did an odour survey and did not detect any odours around the perimeter of the landfill site. Landfill operations for the week were normal with no cell excavation or other activities. Staff concluded that the odours were consistent with composting operations. Therefore, these odours may have originated from the nearby bulk yard and greenhouse operations.

The odours are not landfill related but the result of other commercial operations near the landfill or agricultural operations towards the south

The ministry is satisfied.

Welland River Keepers, Preservation Committee

As the chair of the Welland River Keepers’ Preservation Committee I reviewed the Environmental Assessment Report of the Proposed Expansion of the Humberstone Landfill. At the 16 June 2015 meeting of the Welland River Keepers (WRK) I discussed my findings with members of the WRK.

Over a year ago I notified the MOECC that the Welland River Keepers unanimously agreed that the proposed Humberstone terms of reference failed to address the question of what happens to Humberstone Landfill generated leachate during periods when the Welland sewage treatment plant (STP) is overloaded. In my review of the Environmental Assessment Report of the Proposed Expansion of the Humberstone Landfill (here after referred to as the Humberstone Landfill EA Report) I expected an answer to this question. Although the Humberstone Landfill EA report recognized that during these periods of overload, wastewater reaching the STP receives only a very superficial treatment it made no attempt to evaluate how many days each year the Welland STP was so overloaded that it was unable to adequately treat the waste water that it received.

Without this critical information it is impossible to determine what impacts the release of untreated leachate will have on the biota of the receiving water during periods of overload. The option of trucking the Humberstone generated leachate to other sewage treatment plants was incomplete because it made no assessment of which of these other treatment plants might also be overloaded during heavy rainfall events. Instead it calculated how many miles the trucks would be required to go if they transported leachate from Humberstone on an annual basis.

The Humberstone Landfill EA must specify how the Humberstone Landfill will avoid sending their untreated leachate into the Welland River during periods when the STP is overloaded.

As part of the ECA application following receipt of EA approval, Niagara Region will review applicable regulations in order to assess if any upgrades are needed at the landfill site.

Conveyance of leachate from the Humberstone Landfill to the Welland WWTP is through a combined sewer. It is noted that leachate from the Humberstone Landfill contributes only 1% of the total waste water received annually at the plant from the City sewer system. Thus, minimal impact to the quality in the surface water receiver would be expected, which would be further reduced by the large assimilative capacity of the Welland River watershed during wet weather events. To put this in perspective, in worst case, leachate is only 1% of the flow from the WWTP and the flow from the WWTP is less than 1% of the flow in the Welland River.

Although the leachate would make up a slightly higher percentage of the waste water flow in the portion of the storm sewer system connecting the Humberstone Landfill to the Welland WWTP, during by-pass events, the leachate proportion would be decreased due to the larger volume of water in the system from the storm event. The sewer system operations are the responsibility of the City of Welland and they have an ongoing program to reduce overflow events.

At this time, Niagara Region is reviewing ways to reduce the quantity of non-impacted water entering the leachate collection system. By doing so, Niagara Region will reduce the total quantity of leachate requiring conveyance off-site and hopes to explore the possibility of interlinking the leachate collection system pump stations with the Feeder Road Pump Station and the Welland WWTP. The goal behind the inter-link would be to limit the amount of leachate released during periods when the Welland WWTP is in overflow. In these cases, the leachate collection system would be used to store leachate, to the extent possible. If this is not possible, consideration may be given to an on-Site storage tank to assist in buffering the flows off-Site or a combination of both.

In addition, it is important to note that significant upgrades will be completed to the Welland WWTP this year, which are as follows, including the following on the treatment side: upgrades to the raw sewage pumping station; upgrades to the screening and grit removal facility; upgrades to the existing primary clarifiers and primary mixing system; upgrades to the existing aeration system and secondary clarifiers; and, a new phosphorus removal system.

More importantly, these upgrades are being completed in order to prepare the plant for capacity upgrades scheduled for 2022. The capacity upgrades will see the plant capacity upgraded from 54.6 to 59.7MLD, a 9.3% increase in the quantity of effluent that can be treated by the plant.

The ministry is satisfied.

Member of the Public

I am against this landfill going any higher. For over fifty years we have had to look at a hill of mud. I am talking of the view from St. George Park. Before the dump goes higher, the eyesore should be treed over. Why is there no trees planted to hide the mess? I will try and send pics when I get a chance.

Why do we have to bury our garbage?  Why can't a plant be built and the garbage processed indoors?  Everything could be recycled and reused. Anything left over could be made into fuel pellets and burned somewhere else or onsite. Putting garbage into the ground is not a wise solution in my books.

In 2012, a large grass covered berm was constructed north of the landfill on the south end of St. George Park, which partially screens the visibility of the existing landfill from St. George Park.

As part of the Environmental Assessment process, an assessment of landscapes and views has been completed for the Humberstone Landfill.

It was determined that the expanded landfill is likely not visible over the top of the trees to the east of the berm between the Park and the landfill.

With no trees on the berm, approximately 6 m of the landfill is visible over the berm. However, with 3 m coniferous trees planted on top of the berm, the assessment shows that the landfill expansion is expected to  be blocked from view.

As part of the proposed expansion, additional berms will be constructed in St. George Park. These additional berms, in combination with plantings of coniferous trees on top of these additional berms and the large berm installed in 2012, will virtually eliminate any view of the expanded landfill from St. George Park.

As explained in detail in Section 3.2.3 of the Final EA Report, Niagara Region has made significant efforts to improve our diversion rate through the implementation of unique diversion programs.

Currently, Niagara Region is achieving a residential diversion rate of approximately 51 percent and the Region’s target is 65 percent residential waste diversion by 2020.

The ministry is satisfied.

Table 3. Aboriginal Communities Comment Summary Table

Proposal: Humberstone Landfill Expansion (EA)

Proponent:Regional Municipality of Niagara (Region)

Aboriginal CommunitiesSummary of CommentsProponent’s ResponseStatus

Six Nations of the Grand River

Six Nations Elected Council would like to thank you for providing the notice on the above noted project. Six Nations is concerned about any development relating to land, water and resources which occur throughout their treaty territory and any archeological issues associated with such development(s). Further to the tour of the Humberstone Landfill and review of the Environmental Assessment process for the vertical expansion, we have no further comments at this time.

We would like to thank you however, for the opportunity to tour the facility and wish to be kept up to date on the progress of the Environmental Assessment process and results, as this project is within the Six Nation’s Treaty Lands.

Acknowledged. Niagara Region will continue to inform the Six Nations Elected Council of the Environmental Assessment process and results.

The ministry is satisfied.

Haudenosaunee Development Institute

Please be advised that we are in receipt of your email of July 14, 2015. We are also in receipt of two volumes of material from Golder Associates dated June 2015. The two volumes of materials run something into the range of 800 plus pages. We wish to advise at the outset that the proposed expansion of the Humberstone Landfill will impair, infringe and otherwise interfere with established Haudenosaunee treaty rights and in particular rights related to the treaty of Fort Albany 1701.

To date there has been no engagement on the proposed Project, which would uphold the Honour of the Crown. In particular, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) has failed to undertake any engagement process in relation to the infringement upon treaty rights.

On initial review of the materials provided by Golder Associates we note that we did provide correspondence throughout the development of the Terms of Reference however we did not receive a specific reply to our issues raised at that time. For your ease of reference please refer to paragraph 3.4 of the report which is contained at page 3-2 of Volume I of the report.

We note specifically that the Report does mention the correspondence exchanged between Golder and Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) but does not include that correspondence in the Report. We believe this is significant as the correspondence sets out specifically that HDI has a process, which provides for a meaningful engagement process.

We have attached the following given the omissions in the Golder Report:

July 5, 2012 HDI correspondence to Niagara Region explaining process and requirement of application and fee to review project;

March 14, 2013 Correspondence from Niagara Region advising of inclusion of litigation lawyers; and,

April 9, 2013 HDI correspondence advising on failure of Niagara Region to honour approach established by HDI on behalf of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC).

We can advise that Niagara Region has not undertaken any steps to obtain the consent of the Haudenosaunee or otherwise justify the infringements. At the same time we can confirm that MOECC has not undertaken any steps to obtain the consent of the Haudenosaunee or otherwise justify the infringements.

We wish to invite the MOECC to meet with HDI at its earliest convenience to determine how and when the MOECC proposes to discharge its obligations in relation to the proposed Project. We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Not required. This correspondence was addressed directly to ministry staff.

The comments have been incorporated into the Ministry Review.