Reference No

Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.

Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment

Proposed Terms of Reference

1195 Stellar Drive, Unit #1 Newmarket Ontario L3Y 7B8 Canada 11102771 | Report No 16 | February 8, 2017

Executive Summary Terrapure Environmental (Terrapure) is seeking approval under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) to increase the total approved capacity for post diversion solid, non3 hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 cubic metres (m ) so that Terrapure can continue to operate its business and receive this material to support local industry. This Terms of Reference (ToR) sets out the proposed framework for the planning and decisionmaking process to be followed during the preparation of the SCRF Environmental Assessment (EA). 3

Currently, the SCRF is approved to receive up to 6,320,000 m of post-diversion solid, 3 non-hazardous industrial residual material and approximately 2,000,000 m of industrial fill. Based on historic annual disposal fill rates for residual material, there is approximately 2-4 years of residual capacity remaining at the SCRF as of the end of 2016. Based on the current economics and market dynamics for industrial fill, the original market demand is significantly less than what was forecasted and the financial viability of the SCRF is therefore negatively affected under the current approvals. As per the business case established by Terrapure, given that there is a continued strong market demand for residual disposal capacity for the foreseeable future, Terrapure wants to take advantage of the economic opportunity for capturing post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials by increasing its 3 approved capacity for this material by 3,680,000 m . The proposed undertaking will allow the facility to maintain its standing as a regional facility and provide continued service to the H>A market for local and regional customers. The SCRF EA will be prepared in accordance with subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EA Act. As such, this ToR identifies a predetermined “Alternative To” and identifies the “Alternatives Methods” that will be examined during the preparation of the SCRF EA. As a private sector Proponent with a current facility, expansion of the existing facility is the most reasonable solution to addressing an economic opportunity. Discussion on the business plan and economic opportunity (Purpose of the Undertaking), as well as what options Terrapure is able to consider, was prepared within the context of Terrapure operating the SCRF as a private facility within the Province of Ontario and is highlighted in Supporting Document #1 to the ToR. Based on the capacity increase described above, the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking that will be considered by Terrapure as part of the SCRF EA include, but may not be limited to, the following: •

Alternative Method No. 1: Reconfiguration of the SCRF

•

Alternative Method No. 2: Horizontal Expansion of the SCRF

•

Alternative Method No. 3: Vertical Expansion of the SCRF

•

Alternative Method No. 4: Reconfiguration and Horizontal Expansion of the SCRF

•

Alternative Method No. 5: Reconfiguration and Vertical Expansion of the SCRF

•

Alternative Method No. 6: Horizontal and Vertical Expansion of the SCRF

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16)

The assessment and comparative evaluation of the Alternative Methods will utilize the following three steps. •

Step 1 – Assessment of alternative methods, using critieria and indicators grouped into the five environmental components: natural, built, social, economic, and cultural.

•

Step 2 - Comparative evaluation of the Alternative Methods and selection of the recommended Method.

•

Step 3 – Identification of the Preferred Method following consultation with review agencies, Aboriginal communities, and the public.

Upon completion of this three-step comparative evaluation, an impact assessment of the Preferred Method will be undertaken. Extensive consultation was undertaken with review agencies, Aboriginal communities, and the public (i.e. stakeholders) during the development of the SCRF ToR and prior to the submission of this ToR to the Minister for review and approval. In light of consultation activities carried out prior to the submission of this ToR, numerous comments were received which Terrapure considered as part of finalizing the Terms of Reference. Similar to consultation activities carried out during the preparation of the ToR, proposed consultation activities for the SCRF EA will include, but will not be limited to the following: •

Notifications

•

Meetings and Presentations

•

Community Liaison Committee Meetings

•

Public Open Houses

•

Project-specific Website and Social Media

Consultation efforts will be ongoing throughout the SCRF EA process. However, Terrapure is proposing the following three key decision-making milestones for when main consultation events will occur during the preparation of the SCRF EA: 1.

Alternative Methods

2.

Impact Assessment of the Preferred Method

3.

Pre-Submission of the Draft SCRF EA Report

If approval of this ToR is granted by the Minister, the SCRF EA will be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR. Notwithstanding this, circumstances may arise during preparation of the SCRF EA that could prevent the proposed framework from being carried out exactly as outlined in the approved ToR. As a result, flexibility has been provided in the ToR to allow Terrapure to adjust certain aspects of the proposed framework or accommodate new circumstances during preparation of the SCRF EA without the need to prepare and submit a new ToR to the Minister for approval.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16)

Table of Contents 1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

2.

Identification of the Proponent ..................................................................................................... 5 2.1

History of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility ................................................................... 5 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.2.1 2.1.2.2

3.

Receiving Post-Diversion Material at the SCRF ............................................... 6 Amendments to the SCRF ECA ....................................................................... 7 Annual Waste Receipts and Service Area ....................................................... 7 Landfill Footprint Reconfiguration ..................................................................... 7

Identification of How the EA will be Prepared ............................................................................ 10 3.1

Purpose/Opportunity Statement ...................................................................................... 12

4.

Description of and Rationale for the Undertaking ...................................................................... 12

5.

Description of and Rationale for the Alternative Methods .......................................................... 13

6.

5.1

Description of the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking ........................ 13

5.2

Rationale for the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking ......................... 20

Description of the Environment and Potential Effects ................................................................ 21 6.1

Preliminary Study Area .................................................................................................... 21

6.2

Preliminary Description of the Environment..................................................................... 23 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.2.6 6.2.6.1 6.2.6.2 6.2.6.3

7.

Description of the Assessment and Evaluation Methodology .................................................... 33 7.1

Alternative Methods of Carrying out the Undertaking ...................................................... 33 7.1.1 7.1.1.1 7.1.1.2 7.1.2

8.

9.

Natural Environment ....................................................................................... 23 Built Environment............................................................................................ 25 Social Environment ......................................................................................... 26 Economic Environment ................................................................................... 28 Cultural Environment ...................................................................................... 29 Detailed Description of the Environment ........................................................ 29 Available Existing Information Sources .......................................................... 29 Investigative Studies ....................................................................................... 31 Potential Effects .............................................................................................. 31

Assessment and Comparative Evaluation of the Alternative Methods ........... 33 Assessment of Alternative Methods ............................................................... 33 Comparative Evaluation of the Alternative Methods and Selection of the Recommended Method .................................................................................. 34 Identification of the Preferred Method ............................................................ 34

7.2

Impact Assessment of the Preferred Method .................................................................. 34

7.3

Closure and Post Closure ................................................................................................ 35

Commitments and Monitoring .................................................................................................... 35 8.1

ToR and EA Commitments .............................................................................................. 35

8.2

Environmental Effects and EA Compliance Monitoring ................................................... 35

Terms of Reference Consultation & Consultation Plan for the Terrapure SCRF EA ................. 36 9.1

Terms of Reference Consultation .................................................................................... 36

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | i

9.1.1 9.1.2 9.2

Review Agencies, Aboriginal Communities and the Public Consulted........... 36 Summary of the Results of Consulting with Stakeholders.............................. 39

Proposed EA Consultation Plan ...................................................................................... 40 9.2.1 9.2.2 9.2.3 9.2.4

Proposed Consultation Activities .................................................................... 40 Obtaining Input from Interested Participants .................................................. 41 Key Decision-Making Milestones when Consultation will Occur .................... 42 Proposed Issues Resolution Strategy ............................................................ 42

10.

Flexibility of this Terms of Reference ......................................................................................... 43

11.

Other Approvals Required .......................................................................................................... 45

Figure Index Figure 1.1

Site Location ...................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2.1

2013 Amendment to ECA .................................................................................................. 9

Figure 5.1

Existing SCRF Approvals ................................................................................................ 13

Figure 5.2

Alternative Method No. 1 ................................................................................................. 14

Figure 5.3


Figure 5.4


Figure 5.5


Figure 5.6


Figure 5.7


Figure 6.1

Preliminary Study Area .................................................................................................... 22

Table Index Table 6.1 – Potential Environmental Effects ........................................................................................ 32

Appendices Appendix A

Glossary of Terms

Appendix B

ECA No. A181008

Appendix C

Preliminary Evaluation Criteria and Indicators for Assessing the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking

Appendix D

Proposed Work Plans

Appendix E

Proposed Terms of Reference Commitments Table

Supporting Documents Supporting Document #1

Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility - Business Case Analysis

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | ii

1.

Introduction The Terms of Reference (ToR) sets out the proposed framework that will be followed during the preparation of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) Environmental Assessment (EA) to satisfy the applicable requirements of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act). For proposed “undertakings” in the Province of Ontario that are subject to Part II of the EA Act, a ToR is the first step of a two-step approval process. A ToR is a document prepared by a Proponent that sets out the framework or work plan for the planning and decision-making process to be followed during preparation of the EA. A ToR is submitted to the Ontario Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (Minister) for approval. If the ToR is approved by the Minister, then the preparation of the EA follows as the second step of the EA Act approvals process. The SCRF EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR. The SCRF is owned and operated by Revolution Landfill LP, operating as Terrapure Environmental, herein referred to as Terrapure (Owner, Proponent). The SCRF is located at the northwest corner of Mud Street and Upper Centennial Parkway in the City of Hamilton (formerly the City of Stoney Creek, Figure 1.1) and has been in operation since it was approved in 1996. The SCRF, which operates under Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A181008, as amended, has a total 3 3 approved site capacity of 8,320,000 cubic metres (m ) (6,320,000 m for solid, non-hazardous 3 residual material and approximately 2,000,000 m for industrial fill), with an approved maximum annual volume of 750,000 tonnes of residual material. Terrapure is proposing to increase the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, 3 non-hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 cubic metres (m ) so that Terrapure can continue to operate its business and receive this material to support local industry. The proposal would not change the type or annual volume of residual materials currently accepted at the facility, nor the maximum number of vehicles to the site per day. Ontario Regulation (O. Reg) 101/07 outlines the EA Act requirements for waste management projects in the Province of Ontario. If a Proponent is proposing to increase the total waste disposal volume of an existing 3 waste management facility by more than 100,000 m , then the proposal or “undertaking” is subject to Part II of the EA Act. This undertaking is therefore subject to Part II of the EA Act.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 3

Lom a Dr Bonit a Dr

tS 2nd S

Wyn gate Uppe Ave r Wa lker A ve

Battle field Dr

Battlefield Creek

r

Ave en

Cre s

igle yR d Qu

Mou n tain

Ridge Rd

Rd

Stoney Creek

y Pk

Bun ker H il Han ove l Dr r

D ard H ilde g

Alto Dr

r

u ntr

Ave

N

Leslie Dr

ial

Co

Ell

St

Fa ir way Dr

Rd

r bD y C lu

tA lbio n Mo un

Ave

ew

e lla

Map le

E

nn

enh ill

Dr

t King S

n te Ce

Pl

ti o na l

Ma rc

re

Dr

s D r

Na

G

Derek

An dr ew

Mon te D

on

S

Dr Misty wo

od D r

Gree n

Chilton Dr

Belleau St

Mud S

Ventura

Mou

tW

ntain

Rd E

1st R dE

ount

Para m

d St

tS

erw Amb oo

b Audu

1st R dW

A

tN bon S udu Ackland St

Dr

n Ra d Ra nd S St

t

l Pky Upp er C ente

nnia

Rd E

Dr

2nd Rd E

nd R dW

ury

Ave

High la

tE

High b

Fox tr ot D r

Mud S

Highlan d Rd

Ban kfiel d C

res

Rym al

garden D

ak C

Leck ie

Lone o

Hill

Dr

Gate sto ne

2nd Rd W

Ering a

Dr

t

an S

res

Sidne y C Hillcro ft Dr

te

ck D r

Do

lm

r

o

Av

rd

e

n Drum m o nd

c Bro

r es

Go

Isaa

E

Lake Ontario

HAMILTON

Sinkh o Cree le k

Legend

Reg Rd

Site

20

SITE

Preliminary Study Area (1.5km)

SITE

Source: MNRF NRVIS, 2015. Produced by GHD under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, © Queen's Printer 2016 Inset Map: ESRI Data & Maps 2008 Data Distribution Application (DDA)

0

200

400

Meters

600

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

TERRAPURE STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY EA 65 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD WEST

SITE LOCATION

GIS File: N:\CA\Newmarket\Projects\Projects in Progress\8-chars\11------\1110----\111027--\11102771\05 - EA\GIS Figures\MXD\11102771_Site_Location.mxd

11102771

Feb 8, 2017

FIGURE 1.1

2.

Identification of the Proponent The Proponent for the SCRF EA is Terrapure, the owner and operator of the SCRF. As the Proponent, Terrapure will be responsible for preparing the EA in accordance with the approved ToR. Terrapure is a leading Canadian provider of professional, cost-effective environmental services and recycling solutions that help address industry’s environmental challenges. With an unwavering focus on environmental, health and safety excellence, the company provides services that minimize waste and maximize the recovery or recycling of valuable industrial by-products through a coast-to-coast facility network and on customer sites. Terrapure will be supported by a third party consulting team that will undertake the EA on their behalf. The Proponent’s contact information is as follows: Kim Bailey Office: 905.548.5870 Fax: 905.549.4515 Email: [email protected] Terrapure Environmental 65 Green Mountain Road W Stoney Creek, ON L8J 1X5

2.1

History of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility

The SCRF has a been a fixture in the Stoney Creek/Hamilton area for 20 years, providing environmental services to numerous local and Ontario-based generators of solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. The SCRF has been in operation since 1996 when it was approved by the then Minister of the Environment following the successful completion of an EA. The SCRF’s total approved disposal 3 capacity under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) approvals is 6,320,000 m for residual 3 materials, with an additional allowance for acceptance of approximately 2,000,000 m of industrial 3 fill/soils, for a site total of 8,320,000 m . The annual maximum approved fill rate for the site is 750,000 tonnes of residual material per year. Newalta Corporation acquired the site in 2006 from PSC Industrial Services Canada, and Terrapure took over ownership in 2015 with its acquisition of the former industrial division of Newalta. The SCRF is an engineered landfill site that ensures maximum environmental protection through a double-liner system. The site is constructed with two levels of natural clay liner and a single geosynthetic membrane liner along with extensive leachate and groundwater collection systems. The liner system is approximately 3 meters thick and provides protection to the natural environment. 1 The design was called “state of the art” by an independent panel of experts in 2000. The facility has a proven history of operating in accordance with the requirements of its ECA and other applicable provincial legislation. During the operating life of the facility, this has been acknowledged in published reports such as the one prepared by the independent panel of experts in 2000. The SCRF is regulated by Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) under ECA No. A181008 (Appendix B). The SCRF operates Monday to Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and is permitted to receive up to 250 trucks per day. 1

Final Report: Taro East Landfill Expert Panel 4 October 2000


The SCRF provides a safe and efficient disposal option for industrial residual material and is in a unique position based on the types of materials it accepts, as well as the proximity to where the industrial residual material is generated in Ontario. The SCRF is permitted to receive solid, non-hazardous residual material from the commercial, industrial and institutional sectors, consisting mainly of waste from the steel making industry (i.e., basic oxygen furnace oxide, slag) and soils from infrastructure development. The SCRF is not permitted to accept any residual materials that are putrescible (i.e., waste that contains organic matter which is capable of decomposing and may generate methane gases and odours and has the ability to attract vectors, such as seagulls, vermin, etc.). Because the site does not accept waste capable of decomposing and generating gases, it has 2 received a MOECC exemption from the requirement to have a corresponding gas collection system in place, (as stated in O. Reg. 232/98) based on supporting documentation including a gas emission study and annual confirmatory monitoring. 2.1.1

Receiving Post-Diversion Material at the SCRF

The material accepted at the SCRF comes from a variety of customers and businesses that divert at their own operations and have implemented their own diversion and recovery system. Terrapure has Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that addresses the screening and verification of material that is received on-site to ensure the materials received on-site cannot reasonably be diverted or reintroduced into the circular economy from both an economical and feasible perspective. Diversion at the source of the generated residual material from generators and customers considers both the economic viability of diversion as well as ensuring that there is a viable end market for the diverted material. It is not appropriate or reasonable for Terrapure to develop a diversion plan at the site given that the volumes of material that could be potentially diverted are minimal, and lack an established and financially viable end-market. With respect to the SOP, prior to receiving waste, Terrapure requires a Generator’s Waste Profile to be completed. The waste generator must complete the Waste Profile, which is checked by environmental technicians, and the waste requiring disposal is then analyzed by accredited, independent labs to ensure it does not contain unacceptable waste, and is compared against approved limits. If the analytical results do not meet the criteria or the waste contains unacceptable materials, a Waste Rejection Report is issued. Upon receipt at the SCRF, incoming waste is subject to inspections and random sampling to ensure it is consistent with the pre-screening analysis. Terrapure maintains four full-time staff dedicated to ensuring environmental compliance at the SCRF. Upon arrival at the SCRF, all trucks drive onto the scale for a gross weight, unless the truck has already been weighed and recorded on the weigh bill. Drivers then proceed to the scale house for a document check. If the attendant determines that the paper work is inappropriate, the load is rejected and the environmental technician issues a Waste Rejection Report. If the attendant determines that the paper work is appropriate, the load is accepted and the attendant records the arrival information. If the load will be subject to the random compliance testing program, the load is segregated within the fill area and subjected to sampling and compliance testing.

2

Confirmed by MOECC in 2011 when the then owners of the site (Newalta) successfully applied for an exemption from a landfill gas collection requirement. Annual reports submitted by Terrapure identify the site as exempt from landfill gas collection requirements under O. Reg. 232/98.


Trucks are then directed to the active disposal area, which are directed to park their truck underneath a camera to have the load inspected before proceeding to the tipping area. The landfill operator directs the waste vehicle to an appropriate tipping area within the tipping face and instructs the truck driver to begin emptying the load onto the ground. While the truck is unloading, the operator observes the waste for any non-compliant materials. Once unloaded, the material is spread in even lifts. If any non-compliant material is discovered, the operator contacts the environmental technicians and appropriate actions are taken to remove the non-compliant materials. 2.1.2

Amendments to the SCRF ECA

Since opening in 1996, the SCRF’s ECA has been amended a number of times, including the following: 1.

Amendment to Annual Waste Receipts and Service Area Provisions (2012).

2.

Landfill Footprint Reconfiguration (2013).

Both of these alterations were undertaken in accordance with appropriate legislative requirements, including the Environmental Screening Process under the Waste Management Projects Regulation – O. Reg 101/07 and the EPA, respectively. 2.1.2.1

Annual Waste Receipts and Service Area

In 2012, the SCRF was subject to an Environmental Screening Process under O. Reg. 101/07 to amend the existing ECA to accomplish the following: 1.

Allow the SCRF to continue to receive up to 750,000 tonnes of waste a year, but to allow for the limit to occur over any consecutive 12 month period instead of the calendar year. This change provided operational flexibility by accommodating busier months of receiving waste.

2.

Allow the SCRF to receive approved wastes from anywhere within the Province of Ontario. This change allowed for operational efficiency, as material from outside of Hamilton previously had to be processed at other facilities in Hamilton prior to being transported to the SCRF for disposal.

The amendments were approved by the MOECC in 2013, improving the flexibility and efficiency of operations while significantly reducing truck traffic and related air emissions in the north-end industrial core of Hamilton around Terrapure’s other waste management facilities. 2.1.2.2

Landfill Footprint Reconfiguration

In 2013, the size of the residual material footprint at the SCRF was reduced from the originally approved 59.1 hectares (ha) to an area consistent with the base liner system that had been constructed to date at that time. There was no change to the approved total disposal volume 3 (6,320,000 m ), and the reconfiguration effectively increased the height, while reducing the overall residual material footprint to approximately 41.5 ha. As a result, the setback distance between the limit of residual material and Green Mountain Road was increased from 30 m to a minimum of 140 m (Figure 2.1). This revision was approved by the MOECC in 2014 as an amendment to the ECA under the EPA. In addition to the revised footprint, the SCRF was permitted to accept approximately 2,000,000 m of fill to complete the final site grading in the area of the site that would no longer receive residual

3


material. The fill material for the final site grading is to be “Table 3” industrial fill, which is “non-waste”. Based on current market conditions for industrial fill, Terrapure estimates it will take 13 to 17 years or more after reaching waste capacity to receive all of the material necessary before site closure activities can begin. Therefore, the total remaining lifespan for operations at the site – accepting residual material and placement of industrial fill – is roughly 16 to 22 years.


GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD PROJECT

Stoney Creek Landfill Reconfiguration

SITE OFFICE

FOREBAY

M.C.

EX. 3 CULVERTS CROSSING DRIVEWAY

EXISTING SCALE HOUSE SITE OFFICE TO BE RELOCATED

EXISTING SCALE TO BE RELOCATED

FILL IN EXISTING SUMP WITH CLEAR STONE

LANDFILL ENTRANCE AND EXIT

RECONFIGURATION BERM

MAINTENANCE TRUCK WASH

ACCESS ROAD

EX. SUMP

(TO BE MAINTAINED) V.W.

EX. ACCE SS

Newalta Stoney Creek Landfill 65 Green Mountain Road Stoney Creek, Ontario L8J 1X5 ACCESS ROAD

L.M.F.

EX. LEACHATE COLLECTION POND

CLIENT

Newalta Corporation

ROAD

EX. ACCE SS ROAD

RM

N

F ON

BE

TIO RA

(TO BE MAINTAINED)

213.0

U

IG

1100 Burloak Drive, 5th Floor Burlington, Ontario L7L 6B2 800 263 8602 tel

LANDFILL ENTRANCE

CONSULTANT

C

RE

SS CE AC

EXISTING SPOIL STOCKPILE TO REMAIN

AECOM 300 - 300 Town Centre Blvd. Markham, ON L3R 5Z 6 905 477 8400 tel 905 477 1456 fax www.aecom.com

214.0

AD RO

ACCESS ROAD

215.0

LEGEND: LIMIT OF LANDFILL

.0 216

PERIMETER DRAINAGE DITCH

216.0 204.0

213.0

214.0

215.0

216.0

217.0

218.4 218.0

217.0

218.0

216.0

215.0

214.0

213.0

5

206.5 207.0 206.7

PROPOSED TOP OF GRADED FILL MATERIAL CONTOURS AND ELEVATION

AREA FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PONDS AREA OF CONSTRUCTED FINAL COVER

206.0

205.0

204.0

PROPOSED TOP OF WASTE CONTOURS AND ELEVATION

30m BUFFER ZONE

.0 218 5 . 218

HIGHWAY #20

202.5 203.0

Last saved by: WANGV

Last Plotted: 2013-08-29

FIRST ROAD WEST

2

0 17.

Filename: P:\60290994\900-CAD-GIS\910 CAD_BIM\02-SHEETS\RECONFIGUREATION-D-O-FIGURES-FINAL\60290994-FIG-05_RB.DWG

217.0 216.0 REGISTRATION

215.0 214.0 213.0 212.0 ISSUE/REVISION

211.0 210.0 209.0 208.0

B

August 2013

A

July 2013

I/R

DATE

Issued for Final Report Issued for Client Review DESCRIPTION

PROJECT NUMBER

60290994 DRAWING TITLE

2013 AMENDMENT TO ECA 0

MUD STREET Printed on ___% Post-Consumer Recycled Content Paper

40.0m

SCALE = 1:4000

160.0m

FIGURE NUMBER

2.1

3.

Identification of How the EA will be Prepared The SCRF EA will be prepared in accordance with subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EA Act. Subsection 6.1(3) states that the ToR may provide that an EA consist of information other than the generic requirements outlined in subsection 6.1(2) of the EA Act. Subsection 6(2)(c) states that the proposed ToR must set out in detail the requirements for the preparation of the EA. As a result, the requirements for preparing the SCRF EA are detailed in the following elements specified in this ToR: •

Description of and rationale for the undertaking (Section 4)

•

Description of and rationale for the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking (Section 5)

•

Description of the environment and potential effects (Section 6)

•

Description of the assessment and evaluation methodology (Section 7)

•

Commitments and monitoring (Section 8)

•

Consultation plan for the EA (Section 9)

•

Flexibility for accommodating new circumstances (Section 10)

•

Other approvals required (Section 11)

As permitted by subsection 6.1(3) of the EA Act, this ToR excludes the generic requirements of the purpose of the undertaking and alternatives to the undertaking in the preparation of the SCRF EA. Supporting Document #1 provides the rationale for excluding these requirements as part of following subsection 6(2)(c). This ToR identifies a predetermined “Alternative To” and identifies the “Alternatives Methods” that will be examined during the preparation of an EA. Terrapure’s approach is consistent with the MOECC Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario (January, 2014), which outlines how a Proponent can proceed under subsection 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) if the Proponent is further along in the defined planning process and additional detail is known regarding its proposal. As an example, the Code of Practice states: …what is reasonable for one Proponent to implement may not be reasonable for another when trying to solve a similar problem because the circumstances between Proponents may vary widely. A private sector Proponent’s inability to expropriate land or implement public programs will influence 3 the range of alternatives it may examine. As it relates to the Proponent and its business, the Code of Practice also makes reference to private sector Proponents in the waste industry as follows: The private sector Proponent may only consider landfill or on-site diversion because:

3

•

It cannot implement a municipal waste diversion program such as curbside recycling;

•

Export would affect their business; and,

Codes of Practice, Preparing and Reviewing terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario, January 2014, Pg. 33


•

Thermal technology is not economically viable because waste volumes are too small.

4

Rationale for Excluding the Purpose of the Undertaking and Alternatives To the Undertaking Terrapure is a privately owned and operated company, conducting business in the Province of Ontario. As such, the question as to whether there is a need for the services that Terrapure provides is largely based on business decisions. Similarly, the question as to how the company provides these services is a Terrapure business decision. A specific example as it relates to the proposed undertaking is demonstrated through the recent indications and experiences that Terrapure is encountering with respect to external markets for residual materials and industrial fill – the market for residual material is much stronger and more consistent than that for industrial fill. There is an economic opportunity associated with the ability of the existing SCRF to accept additional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. This economic opportunity was determined through an internal business case for increasing the disposal capacity at the existing SCRF, which was based in part on a review of historic industrial waste generation in Ontario, the volume of this material received at the SCRF as well as the Government of Ontario’s Waste Free Ontario Act and Strategy. Further, Terrapure reviewed projected future waste volumes based on discussions with and analysis of existing clients and customers. This review clearly predicted a continued demand for disposal capacity for this type of waste, and that the demand will far exceed the demand for the disposal capacity of industrial fill and soils. In addition, with the current SCRF running out of residual waste disposal capacity, adding additional capacity at the SCRF is the preferred option for Terrapure to realize the economic opportunity and continue providing residual waste disposal service in Ontario. With this in mind, the EA process has been initiated to examine the various alternatives available to Terrapure to accomplish this objective to develop increased capacity for the disposal of post diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material and implement Terrapure’s internal business plan. As a private sector Proponent with a current facility (i.e., the SCRF), there are a limited number of reasonable ways of approaching or dealing with the opportunity of providing additional disposal capacity. These would typically include the establishment of a new facility or expanding the capacity of an existing facility, such as the SCRF. Expansion of the existing facility is the most reasonable solution to addressing the economic opportunity because: •

The SCRF is the only residual waste disposal facility that Terrapure owns and operates in Ontario

•

Terrapure does not own any other properties that would be suitable for a new facility that could accept post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material

•

It would not be economically cost effective to buy additional properties and develop a new facility that could accept post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material

•

The existing SCRF has waste management infrastructure in place that can be utilized and expanded

Accordingly, it is generally accepted that the most reasonable way of approaching this opportunity of providing increased disposal capacity by a private sector proponent with an existing, permitted

4

Codes of Practice, Preparing and Reviewing terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario, January 2014, Pg. 33-34


and operational facility, would be to look at the various ways in which capacity can be increased at an existing site. Based on the opportunity that has prompted the initiation of the EA process and the fact that Terrapure is a private sector Proponent, there are a limited number of reasonable ways in which the economic opportunity can be addressed; and, the most reasonable way of addressing the opportunity is to examine the various ways in which capacity can be added at the existing SCRF. Accordingly, as the ToR identifies a predetermined “Alternative To”, for which approval is being sought to prepare an EA in accordance with subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EA Act. Discussion on the business plan and economic opportunity (Purpose of the Undertaking), as well as what options (Alternatives To) Terrapure is able to consider, was prepared within the context of Terrapure operating the SCRF as a private facility within the Province of Ontario and is highlighted in Supporting Document #1 to the ToR.

3.1

Purpose/Opportunity Statement 3

The purpose of the undertaking is to increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m so that Terrapure can continue to receive post diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated within the Hamilton & Greater Toronto Area (H>A). Currently, the SCRF is 3 approved to receive up to 6,320,000 m of post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual 3 material and approximately 2,000,000 m of industrial fill. Based on historic annual disposal fill rates for residual material, there is approximately 2-4 years of residual capacity remaining at the SCRF as of the end of 2016. Based on the current economics and market dynamics for industrial fill, the original market demand is significantly less than what was forecasted and the financial viability of the SCRF is therefore negatively affected under the current approvals. As per the business case established by Terrapure, given that there is a continued strong market demand for residual disposal capacity for the foreseeable future, Terrapure wants to take advantage of the economic opportunity for capturing post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials by increasing its approved capacity 3 for this material by 3,680,000 m . The proposed undertaking will allow the facility to maintain its standing as a regional facility and provide continued service to the H>A market for local and regional customers.

4.

Description of and Rationale for the Undertaking The preliminary description of the proposed undertaking is an expansion of the existing SCRF so as 3 to increase its approved capacity by 3,680,000 m to receive additional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated within the H>A. A detailed description of and the rationale for the proposed undertaking will be provided as part of preparing the SCRF EA once a specific undertaking is selected from the Alternative Methods that are to be considered.


5.

Description of and Rationale for the Alternative Methods 5.1

Description of the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking

As mentioned, Terrapure has determined through their business case that increasing the approved 3 capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m to receive additional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated within the H>A is the most reasonable solution for addressing the economic opportunity available to the company. Figure 5-1 highlights the existing approvals for the SCRF for context purposes. Figure 5.1 Existing SCRF Approvals

Based on the capacity increase described above, the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking that will be considered by Terrapure as part of the SCRF EA include, but may not be limited to, the following:


Alternative Method No. 1: Reconfiguration of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility •

The area at the SCRF currently approved for receiving industrial fill would be replaced with post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material (Figure 5.2). As a result, the SCRF would no longer be approved to receive industrial fill with Alternative Method No. 1.

•

The area at the SCRF currently approved for receiving residual material would remain unchanged.

•

Alternative Method No. 1 would not include either a horizontal or vertical expansion.

Figure 5.2 Alternative Method No. 1


Alternative Method No. 2: Horizontal Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility •

The area at the SCRF currently approved for receiving industrial fill would remain unchanged. Therefore, the SCRF would still be approved to receive industrial fill with Alternative Method No. 2.

•

The areas at the SCRF not currently approved for receiving either industrial fill or residual material would be expanded into so that they would be able to receive post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material (Figure 5.3).

•

A minimum 30 m buffer would be established around the entire area for receiving industrial fill or post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.

•

Alternative Method No. 2 would include a horizontal expansion, but not a vertical expansion. The peak height currently approved would remain unchanged.



Alternative Method No. 3: Vertical Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility •

The area at the SCRF currently approved for receiving industrial fill would remain unchanged. Therefore, the SCRF would still be approved to receive industrial fill with Alternative Method No. 3.

•

The area at the SCRF currently approved for receiving residual material would be expanded vertically so that additional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material could be received (Figure 5.4).

•

Alternative Method No. 3 would not include a horizontal expansion, but would include a vertical expansion, increasing the overall height of the area currently approved to receive post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.



Alternative Method No. 4: Reconfiguration and Horizontal Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility •

Alternative Method No. 4 reflects a combination of Alternative Method Nos. 1 and 2 (Figure 5.5). The currently approved area at the SCRF for receiving industrial fill would be replaced with post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. In addition, the areas at the SCRF not currently approved for receiving either industrial fill or residual material would be expanded into so that they would be able to receive post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.

•

The SCRF would no longer be approved to receive industrial fill, but only post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.

•

A minimum 30 m buffer would be established around the entire area for receiving post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.

•

Alternative Method No. 4 would include a horizontal expansion, but would not include a vertical expansion. The peak height currently approved would remain unchanged.



Alternative Method No. 5: Reconfiguration and Vertical Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility •

Alternative Method No. 5 reflects a combination of Alternative Method Nos. 1 and 3 (Figure 5.6). The currently approved area at the SCRF for receiving industrial fill would be replaced with post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. The entire area at the SCRF currently approved for receiving either industrial fill or post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material would be expanded vertically so that additional residual material could be received.

•

The SCRF would no longer be approved to receive industrial fill, but only post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.

•

A minimum 30 m buffer would be established around the entire area for receiving post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.

•

Alternative Method No. 5 would not include a horizontal expansion, but would include a vertical expansion. The peak height currently approved would be increased.



Alternative Method No. 6: Horizontal and Vertical Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility •

Alternative Method No. 6 reflects a combination of Alternative Method Nos. 2 and 3 (Figure 5.7).The existing approved area at the SCRF for receiving industrial fill would remain unchanged. Therefore, the SCRF would still be approved to receive industrial fill with Alternative Method No. 6.

•

The area at the SCRF currently approved for receiving post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material would be expanded vertically, and the areas at the SCRF not currently approved for receiving either industrial fill or post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material would be expanded into so that they would be able to receive post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.

•

A minimum 30 m buffer would be established around the entire area for receiving industrial fill or post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.

•

Alternative Method No. 6 would include both horizontal and vertical expansions, thus increasing the currently approved peak height.



The intent of each of the preceding Alternative Methods is to provide a maximum increase in 3 capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material of 3,680,000 m at the SCRF. A detailed description of each of the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking will be provided as part of preparing the SCRF EA prior to their assessment and comparative evaluation. The detailed description of each Alternative Method will be based on a conceptual level of design, reflecting regulatory requirements (i.e. O. Reg. 232/98) and operational aspects at the SCRF (e.g. required on-site infrastructure). Each of the conceptual designs will incorporate the following elements: •

Buffer zones between the SCRF footprint and the property boundary

•

Setbacks to surrounding developments

•

Contours and slopes of the final cover

•

Peak elevation and height relative to surrounding landscape

•

Footprint size

•

Leachate generation rates

•

Infrastructure requirements

Leachate treatment Alternative Methods and landfill gas systems will not be assessed as part of the SCRF EA. Terrapure is required to meet the design and performance standards of O. Reg. 232/98 for leachate collection and given that this is an existing, operating facility, with an established leachate collection system in place, the SCRF will utilize this existing infrastructure for the selected alternative method. Modifications to the existing leachate collection system relative to the Alternative Methods will be reviewed during the SCRF EA. With respect to a landfill gas collection system, because the SCRF is not approved to receive putrescible or organic material, very little landfill gas is produced at the SCRF and as such, the facility is not required to have a landfill gas collection system in place. As previously mentioned in Section 2.1 of this ToR, this was confirmed by MOECC in 2011, when the then owners of the site (Newalta) successfully applied for an exemption from a landfill gas collection requirement. This current situation will remain the same with the proposed undertaking.

5.2

Rationale for the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking

The preceding Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking were included for consideration in the SCRF EA for a number of reasons. Firstly, all of the Alternative Methods represent different ways of performing the same activity (i.e. increasing the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3 3,680,000 m so that Terrapure can continue to receive post diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated within the H>A). Secondly, all of the Alternative Methods are situated within Terrapure’s existing SCRF property boundary. Thirdly, all of the Alternative Methods will reflect the regulatory design requirements under O. Reg. 232/98: Landfilling Sites (e.g., setbacks, slopes, etc.). Finally, all of the Alternative Methods are within the ability of Terrapure to implement.


There are no other reasonable Alternative Methods available to Terrapure beyond those identified to address the purpose/opportunity of the proposed undertaking. The preceding Alternative Methods maximize the use of Terrapure’s current property ownership at the SCRF. Consequently, Terrapure would have to purchase additional property from a private land owner in order to consider any other Alternative Methods. However, Terrapure would only be able to purchase additional property from a “willing seller” because, unlike a public authority (i.e., municipality), it does not have a statutory power to expropriate private lands and premises to achieve the purpose of the proposed undertaking. Even if a private land owner was willing to sell, Terrapure would be subject to the terms and conditions established by the “willing seller” including the price of land, which would be cost prohibitive e. Also, the use of any additional private property would require amendments to both the City of Hamilton’s Official Plan and Zoning By-Law so that landfilling of the residual material is a permitted use on the newly purchased lands. In both cases, the City would have to approve the proposed amendments. Consequently, the dependence upon both a “willing seller” and the City means that any alternative method reliant upon additional property would be outside of Terrapure’s ability to implement on its own. In addition, the existing SCRF is bordered on all four sides by publically travelled roads (i.e., City of Hamilton ownership). As a result, a horizontal expansion in any direction beyond any one of the existing publically travelled roads would represent, for all intents and purposes, a new waste management facility separated from the existing SCRF. This means that the existing waste management infrastructure associated with the SCRF could not be used to accommodate the additional capacity being sought to address the economic opportunity. Instead, Terrapure would have to establish entirely new waste management infrastructure, which would be cost prohibitive.

6.

Description of the Environment and Potential Effects 6.1

Preliminary Study Area

The preliminary study area for the SCRF EA extends 1500 m (or 1.5 km) from the four roads that border the existing SCRF (i.e., Upper Centennial Parkway to the east, Mud Street West to the south, First Road West to the west, and Green Mountain Road West to the north) (Figure 6.1). With this in mind, the preliminary study area has been defined based on the following: •

The range of Alternative Methods that will be considered as part of preparing the SCRF EA (all of the Alternative Methods are situated within the confines of the four roads surrounding the existing SCRF)

•

The study area identified as part of 1996 Taro East Quarry EA, which was 1500 m (or 1.5 km) from the proposed Taro East Quarry (now known as the SCRF)

•

The data from monitoring the existing SCRF for the past 20 years, which demonstrates compliance with the approved ECA for the facility and limited potential for and extent of off-site adverse environmental effects.


Lom a Dr Bonit a Dr

tS 2nd S

Wyn gate Uppe Ave r Wa lker A ve

Battle field Dr

Battlefield Creek

r

Ave en

Cre s

igle yR d Qu

Mou n tain

Ridge Rd

Rd

Stoney Creek

y Pk

Bun ker H il Han ove l Dr r

D ard H ilde g

Alto Dr

r

u ntr

Ave

N

Leslie Dr

ial

Co

Ell

St

Fa ir way Dr

Rd

r bD y C lu

tA lbio n Mo un

Ave

ew

e lla

Map le

E

nn

enh ill

Dr

t King S

n te Ce

Pl

ti o na l

Ma rc

re

Dr

s D r

Na

G

Derek

An dr ew

Mon te D

on

S

Dr Misty wo

od D r

Gree n

Chilton Dr

Belleau St

Mud S

Ventura

Mou

tW

ntain

Rd E

1st R dE

ount

Para m

d St

tS

erw Amb oo

b Audu

1st R dW

A

tN bon S udu Ackland St

Dr

n Ra d Ra nd S St

t

l Pky Upp er C ente

nnia

Rd E

Dr

2nd Rd E

nd R dW

ury

Ave

High la

tE

High b

Fox tr ot D r

Mud S

Highlan d Rd

Ban kfiel d C

res

Rym al

garden D

ak C

Leck ie

Lone o

Hill

Dr

Gate sto ne

2nd Rd W

Ering a

Dr

t

an S

res

Sidne y C Hillcro ft Dr

te

ck D r

Do

lm

r

o

Av

rd

e

n Drum m o nd

c Bro

r es

Go

Isaa

E

Lake Ontario

HAMILTON

Sinkh o Cree le k

Legend

Reg Rd

Site

20

SITE

Preliminary Study Area (1.5km)

SITE

Source: MNRF NRVIS, 2015. Produced by GHD under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, © Queen's Printer 2016 Inset Map: ESRI Data & Maps 2008 Data Distribution Application (DDA)

0

200

400

Meters

600

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

TERRAPURE STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY EA 65 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD WEST

PRELIMINARY STUDY AREA

GIS File: N:\CA\Newmarket\Projects\Projects in Progress\8-chars\11------\1110----\111027--\11102771\05 - EA\GIS Figures\MXD\11102771_Site_Location.mxd

11102771

Feb 8, 2017

FIGURE 6.1

The preliminary study area will be finalized during preparation of the SCRF EA when the Alternative Methods have been confirmed, and the potential environmental effects are better known.

6.2

Preliminary Description of the Environment

A brief preliminary description of the environment within the preliminary study area addressing all components of the EA Act definition of the environment (i.e., natural, built, social, economic, and cultural) is provided in the following sections. 6.2.1

Natural Environment

Geology & Hydrogeology The existing SCRF itself is located within fractured bedrock of the Niagara Escarpment in a former quarry. The closed Terrapure landfill, historically referred to as the “West Landfill” (closed landfill), located to the west of the SCRF, (across First Road West) is also located within a former quarry. The SCRF and closed landfill are underlain by a sequence of shale and dolostone of the Vinemount Shale formation. A prominent geologic feature within the preliminary study area is a small escarpment known as the Eramosa Scarp, located along the northern edge of both the SCRF and closed landfill. The Eramosa Scarp was formed by the removal of some rock units at the surface during glacial advancement. Subsequent glacial activity has resulted in burial of the Eramosa Scarp beneath a veneer of overburden. Previous investigations have identified 5 distinct bedrock groundwater flow zones within the preliminary study area. Natural groundwater flow direction in these flow zones would be to the northwest towards the Niagara Escarpment; however, there are several natural and man-made features that influence the movement of groundwater in the vicinity of the preliminary study area. Various construction and infrastructure projects in the preliminary study area have influenced local groundwater flow directions and/or gradients. For example, construction of sewers within or below groundwater flow zones can influence groundwater flow by creating preferential pathways for groundwater movement within the granular trench bedding. In the vicinity of the operating SCRF, shallow groundwater enters from the south within the Eramosa Dolostone. The majority of the shallow groundwater is intercepted by the groundwater collection trenches located in the southern portion of the SCRF. From these trenches, groundwater is directed to the Groundwater Pumping Station, where it is pumped to the sanitary sewer system. Groundwater flow in the deeper bedrock flow zones within the preliminary study area is largely affected by the groundwater recovery systems currently in operation, with influences from infrastructure being apparent (e.g. vertical sewer shaft at Green Mountain West and Upper Centennial Parkway). The dominant horizontal hydraulic gradients in the lower flow zones indicate an overall groundwater flow direction from east to west. The groundwater monitoring network for closed landfill and operating SCRF consists of: •

23 monitoring locations within the closed landfill property

•

15 monitoring locations within the SCRF (operating site)

•

23 off-property monitoring locations


Natural groundwater quality in the flow zones monitored beneath the closed landfill and operating SCRF ranges from generally non-potable shallow groundwater to saline or concentrated brine at depth. The natural poor groundwater quality is the result of the characteristics of the bedrock units and the relatively slow groundwater flow velocity. Terrestrial, Aquatic & Surface Water There are several significant natural landforms within the preliminary study area. The Niagara Escarpment is located in the northwest portion of the preliminary study area. Within the preliminary study area, the Niagara Escarpment is a north facing cliff, approximately 70 m high, running roughly east west (Jackman Geoscience Inc. 2015). The Eramosa Escarpment is a buried mini escarpment which is located at the north side of the closed west landfill (Heritage Green Park). The preliminary study area is situated in the Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) jurisdiction, with the watershed boundary between the Credit-16 Mile Watershed and the Niagara Watershed running north-south through the preliminary study area. Several natural water features are present within the preliminary study area. Davis Creek crosses a limited area of the western portion of the preliminary study area. Battlefield Creek, an intermittent watercourse, is nearby to the northeast of the SCRF within the preliminary study area. On HCA regulated areas mapping, a very small portion of the northeast corner of the SCRF is shown as regulated area due to the presence of Battlefield Creek in the vicinity. An intermittent tributary of Stoney Creek is also shown to occur southeast of the Site within the preliminary study area. Davis Creek and Battlefield Creek are both identified as having a warm water thermal regime within and in the vicinity of the preliminary study area. The existing surface water conveyance and treatment system for the SCRF consists of a set of swales, sumps and forcemains that convey stormwater runoff to a stormwater management pond in the northwest corner of the SCRF property for water quality treatment and runoff peak flow control. The stormwater management pond provides quantity and quality control for site runoff. The outlet for the stormwater management pond is near the southeast corner of First Road West and Green Mountain Drive. The outlet structure discharges into a catch basin/manhole southeast in the intersection of First Road West and Green Mountain Road, then through a sewer into a roadside swale on the west side of First Road West. No Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) or Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) are identified within the preliminary study area; however, several significant natural heritage features are identified within the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (Schedule B). Immediately northwest of the SCRF and running through the northern portion of the preliminary study area are areas classified as Significant Woodland, Environmentally Significant Area, and Core Area. Immediately south of the SCRF is a small woodlot that is also classified as Significant Woodland and a Key Hydrologic Feature. With respect to Areas of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSIs), there are three that fall just within or border the preliminary study area: Felkers Falls ANSI, Devils Punch Bowl ANSI, and the Eramosa Karst ANSI. Several anthropogenic aquatic features are present within the preliminary study area. Within the preliminary study area, there is the potential for presence of Species at Risk (SAR), and confirmation from MNRF on potential SAR has been sought. This will be confirmed in the SCRF EA.


6.2.2

Built Environment

Land Use The following land uses are within the Preliminary Study Area: North of SCRF Property Boundary Lands located to the north of the SCRF are primarily residential uses, comprised of single residential dwellings. Lands to the north consist of existing and proposed phases of the Victory Ridge subdivision. The nearest existing residential dwelling in relation to the northern SCRF property boundary is approximately 60 metres (from the SCRF property line to the nearest existing residential property line). South of SCRF Property Boundary The majority of residential uses within the preliminary study area are located south of the SCRF. Lands to the south consist of existing and proposed phases of the Penny Lane Estates subdivision. The nearest existing residential dwelling in relation to the southern SCRF property boundary is approximately 60 metres (from the SCRF property line to the nearest residential property line). The largest concentrations of residential dwellings are to the south and southwest of the site along Mud Street. These residential properties are primarily located within the Urban Area, as identified in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan. In accordance with the City of Hamilton’s filed registered and draft approved plans of subdivision, there are approximately 6800 residential units both existing and proposed within the preliminary study area. Of the approximate 6800 residential units within the preliminary study area, 5500 residential units are currently existing (registered), and the remaining 1300 residential units are proposed (draft approved). A cluster of commercial operations exist within the preliminary study area along major roads, including along Mud Street towards Red Hill and further north along Upper Centennial. Institutional uses south of the SCRF within the preliminary study area consist of the following primary and secondary schools: •

Saltfleet High School (108 Highland Road West, approximately 700 m south of the SCRF)

•

St. James the Apostle Catholic Elementary School (29 John Murray Street, approximately 500 m southwest of the SCRF)

•

Mount Albion Public School (24 Kennard Street, approximately 1,200 m southwest of the SCRF)

East of SCRF Property Boundary Lands to the east of Upper Centennial Parkway (east of the SCRF) are designated under the Rural Hamilton Official Plan. Rural land use designations within the preliminary study area include Specialty Crop, Rural, Open Space and Agricultural uses. There are minimal residential uses east of the SCRF within the preliminary Study Area. The Tapleytown Secondary Plan Area is located just beyond the eastern boundary of the preliminary study area. Public and other recreational uses located east of the SCRF within the preliminary study area include Dofasco Park (including the FH Sherman Recreation and Learning Centre) and Pros Golf Centre.


West of SCRF Property Boundary Located directly west of the SCRF exist recreational uses consisting of the Heritage Green Sports Park and Off-leash Dog Park. Felker’s Falls Conservation Area is located east of the SCRF, within the preliminary study area. The largest concentration of commercial uses within the preliminary study area is located to the west of the SCRF directly off of Mud Street West, just beyond the Heritage Green Sports Park and Off-leash Dog Park. Institutional uses including primary and secondary schools, public facilities and community services within the preliminary study area include: •

Hamilton Fire Station 17 (415 Arvin Avenue, approximately 1,000 m southwest of the SCRF)

•

Family Church of Heritage Green (360 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 800 m southwest of the SCRF)

•

Heritage Green Seventh Day Adventist Church (360 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 900 m southwest of the SCRF)

•

Salvation Army Winterberry Heights Church (300 Winterberry Drive, approximately 1,200 m west of the SCRF)

•

Paramount Drive Alliance Church (1035 Paramount Drive, approximately 1,400 m west of the SCRF)

•

Valley Park Recreation Centre and Arena (970 Paramount Drive, approximately 1,500 m southwest of the SCRF)

•

Heritage Green Seniors Centre (351 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 1,100 m southwest of the SCRF)

•

St. Paul Catholic Elementary School (24 Amberwood Street, approximately 1500 m west of the SCRF)

•

Billy Green Elementary School (1105 Paramount Drive North, approximately 1500 m west of the SCRF)

Visual A combination of earth berms, vegetation, and fences has been established around the perimeter of the site to screen views of the SCRF from the surrounding built-up areas. These features will be maintained throughout the life of the SCRF operation, and will be left in place for as long as practical until the final cover has been constructed or as directed in the closure plan. These features will also be upgraded periodically as required to accommodate changes in site operations or changes to the surrounding land uses. 6.2.3

Social Environment

Atmospheric (Air and Noise) Terrapure is required to monitor wind speed and wind direction and provide monthly reports to the City of Hamilton and the MOECC. The wind speed is monitored hourly by Rotek Engineering and is included in Terrapure’s annual PM10 monitoring Report for the SCRF. Between 2013 and 2015, the SCRF was able to provide wind speed and direction data for 99 percent of the reporting period. Based on background information and secondary source review, within the preliminary study area, the dominant wind comes from the southwest.


Overall, the nearest residential dwelling is approximately 60 m south of the existing SCRF property boundary. The nearest existing residential dwelling in relation to the existing northern property boundary is approximately 60 m northeast of the SCRF property boundary. There are approximately 5500 existing residential dwellings within the 1500 m preliminary study area with the largest concentrations to the south and southwest of the site along Mud Street. An additional subdivision is being constructed to the north.Terrapure tracks wind direction, wind speed, temperature and weather to plan its day-to-day operations. If wind speed is high within the preliminary study area, the operations on site are adjusted as required. This assists in reducing the potential for particulate to be picked up by high winds. Air sampling provides a clear depiction of the particulate emissions from the site as well as allow an understanding of where the emissions are coming from and how they can be mitigated. Air sampling also allows Terrapure to confirm if the SCRF is the source for particulate emissions or if it is coming from an off-site source, such as Upper Centennial Parkway or emissions from construction on adjacent properties within the preliminary study area. Adjacent road traffic travelling along Mud Street West and Upper Centennial Road, both arterial roads, is the predominant 24-hour ambient noise source. Historical background noise studies indicated that the ambient one-hour Leq sound levels during the daytime periods ranged from 56 dBA to 63 dBA. Traffic From a traffic perspective, the preliminary study area includes the major corridors of Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street (East and West). Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street carry the predominant traffic as they serve as arterial roads that feed into the Red Hill Expressway and to the QEW. Major intersections around the SCRF, include: 1.

Upper Centennial Parkway at Green Mountain Road (signalized)

2.

Upper Centennial Parkway at Upper Centennial Parkway Access (entrance only)

3.

Upper Centennial Parkway at Mud Street (signalized)

4.

Mud Street at First Road West (signalized)

5.

First Road West at First Road West Access (entrance and exit)

Neighbourhood & Community Character The existing SCRF and the preliminary study area for this ToR is located within the community of upper Stoney Creek, squarely in the middle of the City of Hamilton’s Ward 9 and within the Federal/Provincial electoral district of Niagara West-Glanbrook. The population of Ward 9 is reported to be 27,171 persons, which is approximately 5.2 percent of the total population of 5 Hamilton . Population projections for Ward 9 show an increase of approximately 57 percent by 2031, coupled with a 44 percent increase in dwelling units from 10,165 in 2006 to 18,020 units in 6 2031 .

5

Statistics Canada, 2011. Niagara West – Glanbrook NHS Profile. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=FED&Code1=35055&Data=Count&Sea rchText=Niagara%20West%20-%20Glanbrook&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode =055&TABID=1 6 City of Hamilton, 2011. City of Hamilton Ward Profiles - Ward 9. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/media/browser/2015-06-01/ward-profiles-2011-ward-9.pdf


According to 2011 census data, the age group with the largest representation within Ward 9 is the 50 to 54 cohort, accounting for 8.3 percent of the population. In 2011, 51.2 percent of Ward 9 residents reported having some form of postsecondary certificate, diploma or degree, as compared 7 to 50.9 percent of the total population of Hamilton . As of the 2011 census, the top three ethnicities 7 within Ward 9 included English, Canadian, and Scottish . A total of 22 percent of Ward 9 residents 7 identified as immigrants, of which 1.3 percent were considered recent immigrants in 2011 . The nearest residential dwelling is approximately 60 m south of the existing SCRF property boundary. There are approximately 5500 existing residential dwellings within the 1500 m preliminary study area, with the largest concentrations to the south and southwest of the site along Mud Street West. An approximate 1300 proposed residential units in new subdivision developments currently approved and/or under construction to the north and south of the SCRF within the 1500 m preliminary study area. 6.2.4

Economic Environment

Local Employment, Labour Supply and Economic Base 7

In 2011, the total labour force aged 15 years and over within Ward 9 totaled 14,580 . The largest portion of the Ward 9 labour force (22.4 percent) was employed in the “sales and service” field in 2011, followed by “business, finance, and administration” (17.5 percent), and “trades, transport, 8 agriculture, and related production” (16.7 percent) . The unemployment rate within Ward 9 was 7.3 percent (as compared to 8.7 percent for Hamilton) in 8 2011 . The SCRF directly employees approximately 13 people on a full-time basis. 8

The current SCRF site generates the following economic benefits for the wider Hamilton area : •

$29 million per year in total economic activity

•

$18 million per year in value-added (GDP)

•

Over 50 local jobs created, earning a total of $2.6 million per year in wages

•

$2.2 million per year in local taxes, royalties and fees paid by Terrapure

Official Plan, Zoning By-Law and Secondary Plan Areas The SCRF is under the jurisdiction of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan and the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92. The SCRF is also directly adjacent to areas designated under the Rural Hamilton Official Plan. The SCRF falls within the Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Area designated under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan. The Urban Hamilton Official Plan identifies the Urban Structural Elements, Functional Road Classifications and Urban Land Use Designation comprising the Terrapure SCRF. The SCRF currently conforms to the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 under Section 9.8.5 ‘Special Exemptions’, as ME-1. In addition to permitted uses under the Extractive

7

City of Hamilton, 2011. City of Hamilton Ward Profiles - Ward 9. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/media/browser/2015-06-01/ward-profiles-2011-ward-9.pdf

8

RIAS Inc., 2017. Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility. 440 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 200, Ottawa ON.


Industrial “ME” Zone, lands zoned ME-1 are permitted for operations associated with 9 non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources . In accordance with the City of Hamilton’s Urban and Rural Official Plans, Zoning By-law 05-200 and the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 land use designations within 1500m preliminary study area of the SCRF primarily include residential, commercial, recreational, institutional and agricultural uses. The preliminary study area includes three (3) Secondary Plan Areas within the Stoney Creek Rural Settlement Area. The Stoney Creek Secondary Plan Areas within the preliminary study area include the following: 1.

Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan

2.

West Mountain Area (Heritage Green) Secondary Plan

3.

Old Town Secondary Plan

6.2.5

Cultural Environment

The SCRF is situated within an exhausted quarry pit. As part of the 1996 Taro East EA, which established the currently approved facility, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation (now known as Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) confirmed that there was a low potential for 10 impacting cultural heritage resources on-site . Notwithstanding this, both Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archaeological sites have been registered and documented throughout the City of Hamilton including the former municipality of Stoney Creek. As a result, the preliminary study area exhibits the potential for the discovery of additional archaeological resources in areas that have not been subjected to significant disturbance. According to the City of Hamilton’s “List of Designated Properties and Heritage Conservation Easements under the Ontario Heritage Act”, there is only one designated heritage property within the 1.5 km preliminary study area. Designated under By-law No. 3683-92, the Billy Green House located at 30 Ridge Road is a designated property under the Ontario Heritage Act. No Part V designated heritage conservation districts (HCD) are located within the 1.5 km preliminary study area. 6.2.6

Detailed Description of the Environment

A more detailed description of the environment will be provided during preparation of the SCRF EA reflecting the final study area using available existing information sources and investigative studies. 6.2.6.1

Available Existing Information Sources

Given that the SCRF has been in operation for 20 years, Terrapure has existing data and information from available reports which will be utilized during the preparation of the EA. This includes the annual monitoring reports that are prepared and submitted to the MOECC as per a condition of approval under the SCRF’s ECA which reviews monitoring data on parameters relating to (but not limited to) air quality, leachate, groundwater and surface water.

9

City of Hamilton, 2015(a). City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law 3692-92. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.hamilton.ca/city-planning/official-plan-zoning-by-law/zoning-by-laws-former-communities 10 Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation letter to Taro Aggregates East Quarry EA, July 5, 1994


In addition, Terrapure commissions an independent annual Community Health Assessment Review, which has consistently concluded that the SCRF poses no scientifically significant or measurable potential impact to human or environmental health. The study reviews the cumulative impacts of ongoing monitoring data of key parameters that could impact the health of the local community. Given that studies will be completed that are benchmarked against human health parameters, such as air quality and groundwater, Terrapure will continue to complete the Community Health Assessment Review as part of the ongoing operation of the SCRF. The Community Health Assessment Review has (in the past) been reviewed by the City of Hamilton Public Health Services (HPHS), and the HPHS has previously confirmed that it does not believe there is any value in pursuing a community health study after: 1) its review of annual monitoring results; 2) review of evidence that there is no human exposure at a level of concern as a result of SCRF operations; and, 3) no substantive adverse health outcomes have been reported in 11 association with the current SCRF operations . Other available existing information sources that were utilized and may be used in the SCRF EA include, but are not limited to, the following:

11

•

Environment Canada and MOECC hourly meteorological data

•

Emissions Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) reports

•

Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN)

•

MOECC water well records

•

MNRF databases

•

Hamilton Conservation Authority databases

•

Planning documents including Provincial Policy Statement, 2014, City of Hamilton Official Plan, City of Hamilton Zoning By-laws

•

Annual Site Monitoring Reports

•

Acoustic assessment reports

•

Odour assessment reports

•

Previous traffic studies

•

Leachate generation assessments

•

Hydrogeological and geotechnical studies

•

Census information

•

Published water quality and flow information from MOECC, Environment Canada and conservation authorities

•

Published data on public recreational facilities/ activities

•

Site ambient air monitoring, continuous emissions monitoring data

•

Site specific odour source data and/or ambient odour monitoring data

•

Site odour complaints history

HPHS letter to the Terrapure CLC Health Sub-Committee, dated February 29, 2012


•

Site-specific equipment noise measurements

•

Waste materials and leachate characterization and sampling data

•

Aerial photographic mapping

•

Topographic maps

Further details on data sources are provided in Appendix D. 6.2.6.2

Investigative Studies

The investigative studies include, but are not limited to, the following: •

Geology & Hydrogeology

•

Surface Water Resources

•

Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment

•

Land Use

•

Atmospheric Environment (including Air Quality, Odour and Noise)

•

Transportation

•

Economic

•

Archaeology and Built Heritage

The details associated with each of these investigative studies are provided in separate proposed Work Plans (see Appendix D). These proposed Work Plans outline what will be done during the SCRF EA to generate a more detailed description of the environment and how that information will be utilized in the assessment and evaluation of alternatives, as well as the assessment of impacts associated with the preferred alternative. The proposed work plans will be finalized as part of the SCRF EA. 6.2.6.3

Potential Effects

The types of potential environmental effects that will be assessed during preparation of the SCRF EA include, but are not limited to, those that are summarized in Table 6.1. The rationale for these initial potential environmental effects are based on the Alternative Methods presented in Section 5.1 and preliminary description of the environment provided in Section 6.1. The types of potential environmental effects have been grouped into the five environmental components: natural, built, social, economic, and cultural. The specific potential environmental effects will be determined during the preparation of the SCRF EA.


Table 6.1 – Potential Environmental Effects Natural • Temporary and/or long-term change in groundwater quality and/or quantity • Temporary and/or long-term change in surface water quality and/or quantity • Temporary or permanent loss of aquatic features or categorical loss of functions • Temporary or permanent disturbance to aquatic and/or terrestrial species and habitat • Temporary or permanent loss of recharge and discharge areas • Temporary and/or permanent loss of natural heritage features

Built • Temporary or permanent disruption to residences, businesses, and/or community, institutional, and recreational facilities • Alteration to roadways • Disruption to utilities • Temporary or permanent property easements

Social • Temporary or permanent disturbance to sensitive receptors due to dust, odours and noise • Temporary disruption to traffic • Temporary or permanent alteration to existing views

Economic • Changes to approved/ planned land uses affected

Cultural • Disturbance to lands with significant archaeological potential (i.e., lands with potential for the presence of archaeological resources) • Displacement or disruption of built heritage features • Removal of cultural landscape units


7.

Description of the Assessment and Evaluation Methodology 7.1

Alternative Methods of Carrying out the Undertaking

The Alternative Methods will be assessed and evaluated to identify the proposed undertaking for which EA Act approval will be sought. The SCRF EA will consider potential effects on the environment associated with the following timeframes: •

Construction

•

Operation

•

Closure/Post-closure

7.1.1

Assessment and Comparative Evaluation of the Alternative Methods

The assessment and comparative evaluation of the Alternative Methods will utilize the following three steps: •

Step 1 – Assessment of the Alternative Methods

•

Step 2 – Comparative evaluation of the Alternative Methods and selection of the Recommended Method

•

Step 3 – Identification of the Preferred Method

Further details on each of the preceding steps are provided in the following sub-sections. 7.1.1.1

Assessment of Alternative Methods

The Alternative Methods will be assessed through a “net effects analysis” consisting of the following activities: 1.

Develop appropriate evaluation criteria and indicators based on the purpose of the undertaking, environmental conditions within the final study area, developed Alternative Methods (i.e. conceptual designs), and type of potential environmental effects from the Alternative Methods. Preliminary evaluation criteria and indicators have been developed, which will include, but may not be limited to, those set out in Appendix C. The preliminary evaluation criteria and indicators will be finalized during preparation of the SCRF EA.

2.

Identify potential effects on the environment (both positive and negative) by applying the finalized evaluation criteria and indicators to each Alternative Method taking environmental conditions into consideration.

3.

Develop impact management measures based on current procedures, historical performance, and environmental conditions to avoid/minimize potential adverse environmental effects.


4.

Apply the impact management measures to the identified potential adverse environmental effects to identify residual or remaining net effects on the environment (both positive and negative).

In addition, Terrapure will review the Alternative Methods from a climate change adaptation and mitigation perspective. This will include identifying historical climate/meteorological trends, as well as the potential for extreme weather events that may have an effect on the Alternative Methods through power outages, physical damage, stormwater management and reduced access to the site. 7.1.1.2

Comparative Evaluation of the Alternative Methods and Selection of the Recommended Method

Once the assessment of the Alternative Methods has been completed, they will be compared using a “Reasoned Argument” or “trade-off” method to select a Recommended Method. Application of this method will identify the advantages or disadvantages of each Alternative Method based on their respective net effects. The advantages and disadvantages will be used to identify preferences among the Alternative Methods in order to establish the Recommended Method. The rationale for selecting the Recommended Method will be provided as part of the SCRF EA. 7.1.2

Identification of the Preferred Method

The Recommended Method will be provided to review agencies, Aboriginal communities, and the public for comment during preparation of the SCRF EA, following which a Preferred Method will be identified.

7.2

Impact Assessment of the Preferred Method

The intent of the impact assessment is to allow for additional details to be developed on the Preferred Method from a design and operations perspective and to then review the impact management measures and resultant net effects described in the Alternative Methods stage within the context of the more detailed design for the Preferred Method. Specifically, the following can be accomplished: •

Potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty.

•

More site-specific impact assessment measures can be developed for application.

•

Net environmental effects can be identified with more certainty.

•

Appropriate monitoring requirements can be clearly defined.

•

Specific approval/permitting requirements for the proposed undertaking can be identified.

Confirmatory environmental investigations may be carried out at this stage, if required. At the completion of the impact assessment of the Preferred Method, the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the Preferred Method will be identified. During the impact assessment, Terrapure will utilize the climate change adaptation and mitigation analysis undertaken during the Alternative Methods stage and augment as needed for the Preferred Method. Climate change mitigation and adaptation measures will be reviewed as part of the detailed site design established for the Preferred Method during the impact assessment stage of the SCRF EA. In addition, during the impact assessment stage of the SCRF EA, Terrapure will complete an assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposed undertaking and other non-SCRF


projects/activities that are existing, planned/approved or reasonably foreseeable within the Study Area (which will be finalized during the EA, as per Section 6.1 of this ToR). The impact assessment of the Preferred Method will be documented as part of the SCRF EA.

7.3

Closure and Post Closure

Closure and post-closure (or decommissioning) of the SCRF will take place in accordance with O. Reg. 232/98, which includes the future requirement to develop a closure plan. Terrapure is required to prepare a closure plan when the SCRF has reached 90 percent of its approved capacity or two years of remaining capacity (whichever comes first). In concert with developing conceptual designs for the Alternative Methods, broad closure and post-closure frameworks will be generated for assessment and comparative evaluation purposes. The broad frameworks may include, but not limited to, reviewing whether existing SCRF infrastructure will remain in place at the site beyond the closure date, post-closure monitoring requirements, as well as the potential post-closure use. The post-closure use will need to reflect current City of Hamilton land use planning controls, which currently intends the site to become open 12 space and/or recreational uses and may include a golf course .

8.

Commitments and Monitoring 8.1

ToR and EA Commitments

As part of preparing this ToR, a number of commitments are being made by Terrapure that will need to be fulfilled during preparation of the SCRF EA. Appendix E lists these commitments. If approval of the proposed ToR is granted by the Minister, the list of commitments will be finalized and included in the SCRF EA, documenting where and how they were dealt with during preparation of the SCRF EA. Similarly, commitments may be made by Terrapure during preparation of the SCRF EA that will need to be fulfilled if approval of the proposed ToR is granted by the Minister. Where such commitments are made, a list of EA commitments will be documented in the SCRF EA Report, including where and how they will be dealt with if the proposed ToR is approved.

8.2

Environmental Effects and EA Compliance Monitoring

Terrapure is committed to developing a monitoring framework during preparation of the SCRF EA that will address environmental effects and, as applicable, EA compliance. The purpose of the environmental effects monitoring is to measure and ensure the effectiveness of any impact management measures proposed to address the potential negative effects of the preferred undertaking. Environmental effects monitoring will monitor the net effects associated with the construction, operation, and closure of the proposed undertaking, as necessary, and implement further impact management measures, monitoring, and contingency plans, where possible, so that:

12

1.

Predicted net negative effects are not more than expected

2.

Unanticipated negative effects are addressed

City of Hamilton, OPA 131 – Passed and enacted September 27, 2006


3.

Predicted benefits are realized

The purpose of the EA compliance commitment monitoring will be to track the commitments made by Terrapure during preparation of the SCRF EA, as well as any conditions of EA Act approval, so that they are followed through as applicable in the construction, operation, and closure of the proposed undertaking. The SCRF EA Report will include a strategy on how and when the commitments will be fulfilled and how Terrapure will report on this to MOECC and other regulatory agencies, as appropriate.

9.

Terms of Reference Consultation & Consultation Plan for the Terrapure SCRF EA 9.1

Terms of Reference Consultation

Terrapure consulted broadly with government review team agencies, Aboriginal communities, and the public (i.e., stakeholders) during preparation of the ToR. A description and results of the consultation carried out during preparation of the ToR is documented in detail in the Record of Consultation (RoC) prepared under separate cover for the ToR. A summary of the RoC is provided in the following sub-sections. 9.1.1

Review Agencies, Aboriginal Communities and the Public Consulted

Review Agencies Nineteen review agencies were contacted during preparation of the Terms of Reference including federal departments, provincial ministries and agencies, and regional and local agencies. The following consist of the review agencies consulted during the preparation of the ToR. Federal and Provincial Agencies Environment Canada Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Ontario Growth Secretariat Ministry of Transportation

Transport Canada Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure Infrastructure Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Niagara Escarpment Commission

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ontario Provincial Police

Municipal and Regional Agencies City of Hamilton, including the following departments: planning, economic development, water, public health, transportation, and city manager

Hamilton Conservation Authority Hamilton Wentworth Catholic District School Board

Hamilton Wentworth District School Board


Aboriginal Communities A total of 6 Aboriginal Communities were consulted via email, telephone calls and mail distributions during preparation of the ToR including the following: Aboriginal Communities Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Métis Nation of Ontario

Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI).

Métis Nation of Ontario Clear 13 Waters Métis Council Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council

Public There are approximately 196 public members included in the project contact database. The database contains members of the public that have directly requested to be added to the list, those who provided written comments and have attended events, adjacent property owners, and individuals known to Terrapure who have expressed interest in the past. Members of the public were consulted via postal mail-drop, email notifications, telephone follow-up calls, social media and project-specific webpages, etc., during preparation of the ToR. In addition, approximately 6,000 residents were contacted via distribution of project notices. A complete list may be found in the RoC. Summary of the Consultation Activities Carried Out with Stakeholders. A wide variety of activities for consulting with review agencies, Aboriginal communities, and the public were undertaken during preparation of the ToR. The consultation activities provided multiple opportunities and different ways for stakeholders to be involved and provide comments for consideration in preparing the ToR. Consultation activities included the following: •

Notifications

•

Meetings and Workshops

•

Public Open House

•

Project-specific Website, Social Media and Toll Free Telephone Number

•

Media Relations

Notifications

13

•

Notice of Commencement and Public Open House – A Notice of Commencement and Public Open House was issued in June 7, 2016. The notification was provided via, two (2) notices in the Hamilton Spectator on June 7 and 9, 2016; one (1) notice in the Stoney Creek News on June 16, 2016; direct hardcopy mailings and digital copy emails were also distributed to all identified agencies. Refer to the RoC for the detailed distribution list.

•

Notification of the Draft ToR available for agency and public review and comment – The Draft ToR was made publically available for review and comment from June 23, 2016 to August 19, 2016. Formal comments on the Draft ToR are documented in the RoC. A follow-up flyer was distributed to approximately 6,000 homes in the L8J postal area on August 8, 2017, to remind individuals to provide comments on the draft Terms of Reference by August 19, 2017.

On December 13, 2016, the Métis Nation of Ontario advised Terrapure that all correspondence for Métis Nation of Ontario should be sent to Métis Nation of Ontario only and not to Métis Nation of Ontario Clear Waters Métis Council


•

Door Hanger and Information Package – On September 8, 2016, door hangers were distributed to approximately 770 homes in the Victory Ridge and Penny Lane Estates neighbourhoods, north and south of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility. The door hanger provided information about the project and invited residents to request an information package from Terrapure. Three residents requested information packages. A copy of the Door Hanger and Information Package is included in the RoC.

•

Terms of Reference Update – Revisions & Submission Timing Notice - On January 6, 2017, a Notice providing an update on ToR discussing revisions and submission timing was distributed to all review agencies, Aboriginal communities, and public on the project-specific contact list by email and mail and to approximately 4,500 homes in the L8J postal area. The Notice summarized the consultation activities that have occurred, some of the key modifications made to the ToR, and the next steps that will be taken. A copy of the ToR Update Notice is included in the RoC.

•

Notification of ToR Submission Date - On January 18, 2017 review agencies, Aboriginal communities, and public on the project-specific contact list were notified that the submission date for the proposed Terms of Reference was February 8, 2017. The public was informed of the proposed Terms of Reference submission date and made aware that a formal Notice of Terms of Reference submission will be released before the proposed Terms of Reference is submitted. Review agencies and Aboriginal communities were asked if they would like to receive the Terms of Reference in an alternate format to facilitate their review (i.e. hard copy, electronic copy on a USB key via regular mail, or an electronic copy via email). The notification was sent via email and mail.

Meetings and Workshops •

Pre-Commencement meetings with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change – Meetings were held with staff from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) prior to the commencement of the ToR process.

•

Community Liaison Committee meeting –Basic details of the project were shared with the Terrapure SCRF Community Liaison Committee (CLC – a representative group of broadly based interested participants residing within a 1.5 km radius of the SCRF, who understand the site and its operation), including representatives of the local community, City of Hamilton and local MOECC office, prior to initiating commencement of the ToR process on June 6, 2016. CLC members were offered the opportunity to engage in the process and learn more at special workshops moving forward, as the EA is outside of the scope of the CLC’s mandate, which relates only to ongoing operations.

•

Community Liaison Committee Workshops –The CLC was engaged via workshop sessions held on June 20, 2016, July 11, 2016 and January 31, 2017 to provide an opportunity for open, in-depth discussion of project issues.

•

Government Review Team meeting – The GRT meeting took place on June 22, 2016 at the Hamilton District Office of the MOECC. The purpose of this meeting was to (1) provide a review of background information regarding Terrapure and the SCRF and proposed undertaking; (2) provide an overview of the EA process and the development of the ToR; and (3) discuss potential key issues of interest of GRT members.


•

Additional stakeholder meetings – Meetings with the following stakeholders have taken place. Details of these meeting are further discussed in the RoC:

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

City of Hamilton

Hamilton Public Health

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB)

Hamilton Conservation Authority

City of Hamilton Mayor and Councilors (collectively and individually)

Several meetings with residents and interested members of the public

Terms of Reference Public Open House A Public Open House was held on June 21, 2016 from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Salvation Army Winterberry Heights Church (300 Winterberry Drive, Stoney Creek), to allow an opportunity for the public to learn about the SCRF EA, the ToR and EA process, the initial draft ToR elements and content, as well as ask questions and provide comments directly to the project team. Project-specific Website, Social Media and Toll Free Telephone Number A project-specific website (http://www.terrapurestoneycreek.com/) went live on June 7, 2016. The website houses a document library consisting of the Draft ToR and supporting documents. Social media webpages (Facebook and Twitter) provide updates regarding project-specific notices and related events, local area news and events, Heritage Green Community Trust and City of Hamilton Royalty Program updates, and educational materials regarding the Facility. Formal comments received via social media are documented in the RoC. A dedicated project-specific email account ([email protected]) and Toll Free number (1-844-898-2380) have also been established. Media Relations Terrapure staff made themselves available to media inquiries to address questions about the project. Further, staff from the Hamilton Community News, were added to the stakeholder list and provided with regular updates regarding the project. 9.1.2

Summary of the Results of Consulting with Stakeholders

The preceding consultation activities resulted in a range of comments being received from the involved review agencies, Aboriginal communities, and the public. Comments were received through letters, emails, telephone calls, submissions on the project website and at meetings. The comments received and issues raised and how they have been considered by Terrapure during preparation of the Terms of Reference are summarized in three separate tables in the RoC in accordance with Section 5.3.1 of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s “Code of Practice for Preparing and Review Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario (January 2014). The following is a summary of the topics that have raised and are further discussed in the RoC. •

Financial benefits to the local community (Heritage Green Community Trust, City of Hamilton Royalty program).


•

Current lifespan and impacts of project on future closure timing of the facility.

•

Environmental protection and monitoring (ground and surface water; air quality).

•

Human health – ensuring no impacts on health of neighbouring residents.

•

Financial impacts on local industry and additional disposal capacity.

•

End use of site – potential future community uses.

•

“End of life” materials – ensuring materials received at the site are “end of life” and have exhausted all recycling opportunities.

•

Service area – geographic area of industrial customers serviced by the SCRF.

•

General site operations – types of materials received; analytical testing of incoming residual materials; noise / odour / dust monitoring programs.

•

Surrounding land uses (e.g. potential new school being planned by HWDSB; new residential subdivision planned on Green Mountain Rd. W; impacts on property values).

•

Did not receive any notifications regarding the Open House.

•

Traffic – Anticipated truck traffic volume resulting from the reconfiguration.

•

Visual impacts – height of the proposed reconfiguration, visibility from the surrounding community, and requirements for additional berms and/or fences.

•

Waste Characteristics and waste diversion - Type and quantity of waste and Verification that all materials received at the Site are, in fact, “end of life”.

9.2

Proposed EA Consultation Plan

9.2.1

Proposed Consultation Activities

The consultation activities proposed for the SCRF EA will include, but will not be limited to, those carried out during preparation of the ToR, which are briefly summarized as follows: Notifications •

Notices – providing information on the SCRF EA to interested persons and how they can be involved. The notices will be presented through a variety of methods. Some of the methods that will be considered include the following: local area newspapers (Hamilton Spectator, Stoney Creek News), project-specific website, Canada Post or other private distribution mail-drops, project-specific social media pages (Facebook, Twitter), outdoor signs, robo-calls.

•

Information letters and flyers – will be distributed to residential subdivisions directly adjacent to the SCRF, as previously distributed during the ToR, consisting of key updates and opportunities to be involved in the EA process.

Meetings and Presentations •

Individual/group meetings – discussing project-specific issues with a review agency or agencies, an Aboriginal community or communities, and the public. Meetings will occur at key milestones of the EA process.


•

Community Liaison Committee (CLC) – providing the existing CLC an opportunity to hold additional meetings, outside of the existing CLC meeting schedule, to provide a forum for in-depth discussion of project issues and act as a conduit with the local community.

•

Presentations to the City of Hamilton – providing status updates on the SCRF EA to staff and/or Councillors as required.

Public Open Houses •

Public Open Houses – three drop-in style open house events are proposed during the SCRF EA for the public to view information and ask questions/make comments to Terrapure directly. Public Open House events are planned as follows: -

Public Open House Number 1 – discussion on the developed Alternative Methods, the evaluation criteria and indicators to be applied to Alternative Methods, and the evaluation methodology that will be utilized.

-

Public Open House Number 2 - reviewing the comparative evaluation results of the Alternative Methods and identifying the recommended Alternative Method

-

Public Open House Number 3 - reviewing the impact assessment results of the Preferred Method, including potential environmental effects, recommended impact management measures, proposed monitoring requirements, and proposed approvals/permits required for implementing the Preferred Method.

Project-specific Website and Social Media •

Project-specific website – will provide clear information, updates on the EA, as well as relevant EA documentation, to stakeholders as well as an opportunity for them to give feedback to Terrapure (www.terrapurestoneycreek.com). A dedicated project-specific email account ([email protected]) and Toll Free number (1-844-898-2380) has also been established as part of the Project website.

•

Project-specific social media webpages (Facebook and Twitter) – will provide succinct information to stakeholders as well as to provide updates on the EA.

9.2.2

Obtaining Input from Interested Participants

Input will be obtained from interested during the SCRF EA through a variety of means specific to each group as follows: •

Review agencies, as applicable (Federal departments, Provincial ministries and agencies, City of Hamilton, conservation authorities, school boards, utilities, etc.)

•

Aboriginal Communities, as applicable

•

Public (e.g. groups and/or associations, property owners, residents, business owners, etc.)

Review Agencies Input from interested review agencies will be received primarily through written correspondence and e-mails, individual or group meetings (e.g., Government Review Team meetings). Aboriginal Communities Input from interested Aboriginal Communities will be obtained primarily through written correspondence and e-mails, documented telephone follow up calls and, if interest is expressed,


individual or group meetings. It is the objective of Terrapure to develop meaningful opportunities to engage with Aboriginal Communities throughout the EA process by providing access to technical information and the project team’s technical expertise as well as receiving input and being responsive to any concerns that may arise. Terrapure commit to refining the preliminary criteria and indicators as set out in Appendix C to this ToR should Aboriginal communities request the inclusion of a suggested criteria/indicator. Public Input from the public will be received primarily through written correspondence and e-mails, documented telephone calls via the project specific 1-800 number established for the Project, verbal discussions held at Public Open House events, special CLC meetings, and additional individual or group meetings. 9.2.3

Key Decision-Making Milestones when Consultation will Occur

As mentioned in Section 9.2.1 of this ToR, there are a number of key decision-making milestone points when consultation will occur during preparation of the SCRF EA. These key decision-making milestones have been grouped as follows: •

•

•

Alternative Methods (Open Houses 1 and 2 as outlined in Section 9.2.1 of this ToR)

Reviewing the developed Alternative Methods

Confirming the evaluation criteria and indicators to be applied to Alternative Methods

Confirmation of the Final Environmental Assessment Study Area

Reviewing the recommended Alternative Method identified through the comparative evaluation process

Impact Assessment of the Preferred Method (Open House 3 as outlined in Section 9.2.1 of this ToR)

Reviewing the potential environmental effects, recommended impact management measures, proposed monitoring requirements, and proposed approvals/permits required for implementing the Preferred Method.

Final description of the Final Environmental Assessment Study Area environment

Pre-Submission of the Draft SCRF EA Report

Reviewing the draft SCRF EA Report prior to its finalization and formal submission to the Minister for approval.

Notwithstanding these key decision-making milestones, consultation will be ongoing throughout the SCRF EA. 9.2.4

Proposed Issues Resolution Strategy

Recognizing that there may be issues raised or disputes during preparation of the SCRF EA that may be difficult to resolve, an issues resolution strategy is proposed as part of the ToR. This strategy will benefit all parties involved by providing an agreed to and well understood issues resolution process to ensure that disputes are effectively and appropriately dealt with. Should an issue or dispute arise during preparation of the SCRF EA, Terrapure will discuss the nature of the issue or dispute with the interested persons and attempt, in good faith, to reach a


resolution that is agreeable to both Terrapure and the interested persons. In the event that a mutually agreeable resolution does not occur, Terrapure will refer the matter to MOECC.

10.

Flexibility of this Terms of Reference If approval of the ToR is granted by the Minister, then the SCRF EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR. Notwithstanding this, circumstances may arise during preparation of the SCRF EA that could prevent the proposed framework from being carried out exactly as outlined in the approved ToR. As a result, flexibility has been provided in the ToR to allow Terrapure to adjust certain aspects of the proposed framework or accommodate new circumstances during preparation of the SCRF EA without the need to prepare and submit a new ToR to the Minister for approval. The following table lists the aspects/circumstances Terrapure is seeking flexibility in: Aspect/Circumstance

Process for Confirming/Finalizing

Description of and rationale for the undertaking.

A detailed description of and the rationale for the proposed undertaking will be provided as part of preparing the SCRF EA once a specific undertaking is selected from the Alternative Methods that are to be considered.

A preliminary description of the proposed undertaking is provided in the ToR: •

An expansion of the existing SCRF so as to increase its approved capacity by 3 3,680,000 m to receive additional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated within the H>A.

Description of and Rationale for the Alternative Methods A preliminary description of each of the Alternative Methods and their rationale is provided in the ToR.

Preliminary Study Area A preliminary study area for the SCRF EA that extends 1500m or 1.5km from the four roads that border the existing SCRF has been identified in the ToR.

The preliminary descriptions of each of the Alternative Methods will be expanded upon as part of preparing the SCRF EA so that a detailed description of each is provided for prior to their assessment and comparative evaluation. Similarly, the rationale for each of the Alternative Methods will be expanded upon as part of preparing the SCRF EA. The preliminary study area will be finalized during preparation of the SCRF EA when the Alternative Methods have been confirmed and the potential environmental effects are better known.


Aspect/Circumstance


Detailed Description of the Environment

A more detailed description of the environment will be provided during preparation of the SCRF EA reflecting the final study area using available existing information sources and investigative studies.

A brief description of the environment within the preliminary study area addressing all components of the EA Act definition of the environment (i.e., natural, built, social, economic, and cultural) has been provided in the ToR. Investigative Studies/ Work Plans A description of the investigative studies and proposed work plans has been provided in the ToR. Potential Effects A preliminary list of the types of potential environmental effects that will be assessed during preparation of the SCRF EA has been included in the ToR. Evaluation Criteria A preliminary list of evaluation criteria and indicators that will be finalized and utilized during preparation of the SCRF EA has been provided in the ToR. Consultation A preliminary list of consultation activities proposed to be carried out during the preparation of the SCRF EA are provided in the ToR: •

Notifications

•

Meetings and presentations

•

Public Open Houses

•

Project-specific Website and Social Media

The proposed work plans will be finalized as part of the SCRF EA.

The specific potential environmental effects will be determined during the preparation of the SCRF EA.

The preliminary evaluation criteria and indicators will be finalized prior to application during preparation of the SCRF EA.

As part of the SCRF EA, the consultation events will include those listed as part of the ToR, but may include additional events as required.


Aspect/Circumstance


Other Approvals Required

The actual approvals required for the preferred undertaking will be identified during preparation of the SCRF EA.

A preliminary list of additional approvals that may be needed to implement the proposed undertaking are identified in the ToR.

11.

Other Approvals Required In addition to requiring EA Act approval, additional approvals are required under a number of provincial statutes to implement the proposed undertaking. The types of approvals that potentially apply may include, but are not limited to: •

Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA) - MOECC

•

Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) – MOECC

•

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) 2012 – Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

The actual approvals required for the preferred undertaking will be identified during preparation of the SCRF EA.
