Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WORKSHOPWORKSHOPWorkbookWorkbook
Terms of Reference for the
Environmental Assessment (EA)Environmental Assessment (EA) of the
Brighton Landfill
Name: ______________________________________
Address: ______________________________________
Email: ______________________________________
Workshop No. 1 1
Agenda
Time Activity Description6:00 – 6:15 pm Registration & coffee/snack6:15 – 6:30 pm Introduction (Adam McCue) ‐ Objectives of workshop, overview of agenda and schedule, introduction of
facilitators. Overview of project and history leading to current EA.p j y g
6:30 – 6:40 pm TOR Section 1: Introduction (consulting team)
‐ EA process for Ontario & Canada ‐ Purpose of TOR‐ Proponent ‐ How the EA will be prepared‐ Justification for submitting a focused TOR‐ Flexibility of TOR ‐ Service area
6:40 – 6:55 pm Discussion6:40 6:55 pm Discussion 6:55 – 7:05 pm TOR Section 2: Proposed Undertaking and
Rationale (consulting team)‐ Rationale for the undertaking ‐ Purpose of the undertaking‐ Assessment of “alternatives to” ‐ Description of the proposed undertaking ‐ Identification of “alternative methods”
7:05 – 7:20 pm Discussion7:20 – 7:30 pm TOR Section 3: Existing Environmental ‐ Study areas ‐ Environmental components
Conditions (consulting team) ‐ Overview of existing environmental conditions
7:30 – 7:45 pm Discussion7:45 – 7:55 pm TOR Section 4 & Appendices: Assessment
Methodology (consulting team)‐ EA Methodology ‐ Technical work plans ‐ Assessment Criteria (environmental components, indicators and data sources
7:55 – 8:05 pm Discussion8:05 – 8:15 pm TOR Section 5: Consultation
(consulting team)‐ Summary of consultation activities during the TOR‐ Proposed consultation program for the EA
8:15 – 8:30 pm Discussion8:30 – 9:00 pm Wrap up (Adam McCue) ‐ TOR and EA Schedule ‐ Next steps
9:00 pm (latest) Adjourn
2Workshop No. 1
Brighton Landfill Site Plan
APPROVED LIMIT OF WASTEIN 2000
CURRENT APPROVED LIMIT OF WASTE
New Cell Constructed in 2007
(Approx. 20% of Landfill Footprint)
New Cell Constructed in 2009
(Approx. 20% of Landfill Footprint)
Old Cell(Approx. 60% of Landfill Footprint)
3Workshop No. 1
TOR Section 1.0
Section 1.2 The Environmental Assessment Process
Section 1.3 Purpose and Organization of TOR
Section 1.4 Identification of Proponent
Section 1.5 Terms of Reference Submission Statement (How the Environmental AssessmentWill Be Prepared
Section 1.6 Justification for Submitting a Focused Terms of Reference
Section 1.7 Service Area
Section 1.8 Flexibility in Terms of Reference
4Workshop No. 1
Section 1.2 The EA Process
The Waste Management Projects Regulation (Ont. Reg. 101/07) under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), designates some waste management projects. Other projects are exempted.
Ontario Environmental Assessment Act
The larger footprint for disposal at the site that is required for remediation purposes would add more than 100,000 cubic metres to the total waste disposal capacity.
According to Section 4 of Ont. Reg. 101/07, the County’s project is subject to an individual environment assessment (EA) under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
No triggers have been identified and so it is anticipated that no federal EA is required.
Your comments:
The TOR adequately explains the EA process I require more information Other ______________________________ No comment No comment
5Workshop No. 1
Section 1.3. Purpose & Organization of the TOR
The TOR is a framework which sets out the things to be studied and evaluated in the EA process .
The proposed TOR was drafted by the County of Northumberland in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment surrounding communities and interested parties
The TOR tells us: Who the proponent is (the County) and describes the project in general terms; What studies will be undertaken to describe existing environmental conditions;
Environment, surrounding communities and interested parties.
What methods will be used to estimate and assess potential effects of the project on the environment; How alternative methods for implementing the project will be identified and assessed; How mitigation measures will be determined and assessed; and The results of consultation during the TOR preparation process and how consultation will be conducted
during the EA.g
The Minister of the Environment (Minister) decides whether to:
Your comments:
to: approve the TOR; approve the TOR with amendments; refer a matter related to the TOR to mediation; or reject the TOR.
I understand the purpose of the TOR I require more information Other ______________________________ No comment
6Workshop No. 1
Section 1.4. Identification of Proponent
The Corporation of the County of Northumberland (the County) is the proponent.
The Proponent
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch (EAAB) at the OntarioMinistry of the Environment will coordinate a review of the TOR and theEA
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
The County contact for this project is as follows:Mr. Adam McCueManager of Waste ‐ Technical Support & CommunicationsCounty of Northumberland 555 Courthouse Road Cobourg, K9A 5J6
EA.
The Project Officer assigned to this project will undertake these tasks onthe Ministry’s behalf.
Ms. Lorna Zappone, Project Officer EA Project Coordination Section, EAABMi i t f th E i tTelephone: 905‐372‐3329 Ext. 2299
Fax: 905‐372‐1696E‐mail: [email protected]
Ministry of the Environment2 St Clair Avenue West, Floor 12AToronto ON M4V 1L5Telephone: 416 314‐7106 Fax: 416 314‐8452
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder)The Government Review Team, including Ministry technical staff, ill i t th C t i id tif i f ithi th iGolder Associates Ltd. is the consulting firm retained by the
County to assist it through the Environmental Assessment process for the Brighton Landfill.
Contact:Mr. Ted O’Neill, Associate
l l
will assist the County in identifying areas of concern within their mandated areas of responsibility and will participate in the government review of the proposed TOR. Interested Persons, including Aboriginal Peoples are encouraged to participate in the preparation and review of the TOR. The Brighton Landfill Liaison Committee (BLLC) is a committee established in the early 2000’s toEnvironmental Assessment Specialist
32 Steacie Drive, KanataOntario, K2K 2A9Telephone: 613‐592‐9600 x 4277Fax: 613‐592‐9601E‐mail: [email protected]
Committee (BLLC) is a committee established in the early 2000 s to assist the County with the development of the remediation objectives and approach.
Copies of the draft TOR can be downloaded from our website:
http://www.northumberlandcounty.ca/BrightonLandfillEA
7Workshop No. 1
http://www.northumberlandcounty.ca/BrightonLandfillEA
Section 1.5. TOR Submission Statement
The County of Northumberland proposes to submit the TOR as a “focused” EA which means that
Sections of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act enable proponents to “focus” the EA to their particular circumstances.
The County of Northumberland proposes to submit the TOR as a “focused” EA, which means that an assessment of the “need” for the project and an assessment of “alternatives to” the project will not be included in the EA.
The reasons for this is that the County has previously undertaken its own assessment of the need for the project and alternatives to the project, including doing nothing. This assessment process included consultation with the public and the Brighton Landfill Liaison Committee.
The County is also proposing that transportation studies will not be part of the EA because there will be no change in transportation conditions as a result of implementing the project.
Do you agree with the County’s decision to submit a focused EA because these studies have been already completed?
I ( h ?)The elements of the EA that will be prepared do not differ drastically with the generic elements of EA studies as described in the Ontario EAA.
I agree (why?)_______________________ I disagree (why?)_____________________ Other ______________________________ No comment
8Workshop No. 1
Section 1.6. Justification for “Focused” EA
The Minister may approve, through the TOR process, certain exceptions to the generic requirements described in Section 6.1(2) of the EAA.
The County believes, and the public has agreed during a previous planning process (2006), that there was a need to remediate the Brighton Landfill from a natural attenuation landfill into an engineered site; to protect off‐site groundwater from potential contamination; and to establish long‐term leachate treatment/disposal options.
There was a clear agreement with the ‘need’ for the project as demonstrated through public support heard during the 2006 PIC.
Do you agree that the County has provided adequateDo you agree that the County has provided adequate justification for undertaking a “focused” EA?
I agree (why?)_______________________ I disagree (why?)_____________________ Other
The County considered different ways to undertake the remediation project, including th ti f d i thi Other ______________________________
No commentthe option of doing nothing.
9Workshop No. 1
Sections 1.7 & 1.8
Service Area is the geographic extent specified in the Certificate of Approval from which wastes may be received at the Brighton Landfill.
No change to the currently approved service area is proposed.
The service area for the project is the County of Northumberland and the seven municipalities inside its boundaries.
As noted the TOR sets out the framework for the EA. What happens if changes are necessary?
Section 1.8 is included to provide for a reasonable amount of flexibility in the application of the TOR when conducting the EA should there be the need for minor variations
Do you agree with these sections of the TOR?
I agree (why?)_______________________ I disagree (why?)for minor variations. g ( y )_____________________ Other ______________________________ No comment
10Workshop No. 1
TOR Section 2.0
Section 2.1.1 Rationale for the Undertaking
Section 2.1.2 Purpose of the Undertaking
Section 2.1.3 Assessment of “Alternatives To”
Section 2.2 Description of the Proposed Undertaking
Section 2.3 Identification of Alternative Methods
11Workshop No. 1
Sections 2.1.1 & 2.1.2 Rationale and Purpose of the Undertaking
In 2005, the County established goals of bringing the Brighton Landfill to modern waste management standards (i.e., from a site relying on natural attenuation for off‐site groundwater protection to one having an engineered leachate
Need for the Project
containment and management system).
Strong support was expressed for the project at the public information centre on September 19, 2006 and by the Liaison Committee. Thus, the County concluded that clearly the project was needed.
Af bli hi h d f h i di i j h C id d Al i hi h
The most practical and cost effective Alternative is to line newadditional disposal areas, transfer existing waste to these new
After establishing the need for the site remediation project, the County considered Alternative ways to achieve the remediation and continue site operations through 2023.
additional disposal areas, transfer existing waste to these newareas, line the currently approved landfill disposal footprint, andthen fill this area.
Since this approach involves an increase in the capacity of theexisting landfill approval under the Ontario Environmental
Do you agree with rational and the purpose of the undertaking?
I agree (why?)_______________________ I disagree (why?)_____________________existing landfill, approval under the Ontario Environmental
Assessment Act is required.
As a result, the County initiated an environmental assessment (EA),which is a planning study that assesses environmental effects andbenefits of a project
Other ______________________________ No comment
benefits of a project.
12Workshop No. 1
Section 2.1.3 Assessment of “Alternatives To”
The County’s assessment found that Alternative 4 would achieve its objective of site remediation, protection of groundwater andcontinuation of disposal of wastes from the County through the year 2023.
Considering the need to manage the ongoing generation of wastes requiring disposal within the County, the following Alternatives were considered:
Alternative 1 ‐ Do nothing;
This Alternative could be implemented using existing and proven technologies. Since an expansion of the current disposal capacity of approximately 500,000 m3 was needed the County recognized that approval under the EAA would be required.
Alternative 1 Do nothing;
Alternative 2 ‐ Remediate the Site by excavating and relocating wastes to another disposal site;
Alternative 3 ‐ Remediate the Site by excavating, recycling and relocating wastes within the currently approved landfill footprint and airspace; and
The findings and recommendations to conduct an EA to achieve an expansion to enable remediation of the landfill were presented to the BLLC and in late 2009 the County decided that itwould proceed with Alternative 4 and the required EA process.
landfill footprint and airspace; and
Alternative 4 ‐ Remediate the Site by excavating and relocating the wastes beyond the currently approved landfill footprint and airspace.
The following factors were considered in the assessment of Alternatives:Alternatives: Ability to meet the County's objectives for the Brighton
Landfill; Use of proven and available technologies; Economically acceptable; d f dd l l d d
Do you agree with ‘Alternatives To’ Assessment?
I agree (why?)_______________________ I disagree (why?)_____________________ Other Need for additional land; and
Ease of approval/permitting.
Preferred Alternative is Alternative 4 – Remediate the Site by excavating and relocating the wastes beyond the currently approved landfill footprint and airspace
Other ______________________________ No comment
13Workshop No. 1
the currently approved landfill footprint and airspace.
Section 2.2 Description of the Proposed Undertaking
1. Continue disposal operations for new waste generation in the existing ‘new’ lined landfill cells within the approved landfill
The proposed undertaking, which will be assessed and refined in the EA process, will consist of a sequence of construction and operational components, generally described as follows:
1. Continue disposal operations for new waste generation in the existing new lined landfill cells within the approved landfillfootprint;
2. Excavate existing waste material in the south part of the ‘old’ landfill area and move this material to the ‘new’ lined cells, where it will be co‐disposed with the current wastes;
3. Construct a bottom liner and leachate collection system in the excavated south area to create a rehabilitated (lined) cell;
4. Construct a bottom liner and leachate collection system in the expansion area, once approved;
5. Ongoing disposal of relocated and new waste in the lined cell areas;
6. Excavate remainder of the existing older waste in the east part of the landfill footprint, and co‐dispose with the new waste generation;
7. Construct a bottom liner and leachate collection system in the remainder of the excavated eastern area;
8. Ongoing waste disposal in the lined cell areas; and
9. Fill the expanded landfill to the approved final shape and grades through 2023, with progressive placement of final cover as disposal in areas of the landfill is sequentially completed.p q y p
The proposed undertaking consists of a sequence of construction activities and landfilling operations that are typical of operations at waste disposal sites.
Do you agree with proposed undertaking? I agree (why?)_______________________ I disagree (why?)_____________________ Other ______________________________ No comment
14Workshop No. 1
The Proposed UndertakingStage IStage I
Continue disposal operations for new waste generation in the existing ‘new’ lined landfill cells within the approved landfill footprint.
Numbers in circles on the figure are explained in the notes below:
1
Excavate existing waste material in the south part of the ‘old’ landfill area and move this material to the ‘new’ lined cells, where it will be co‐disposed with the new waste.
Construct a bottom liner and leachate collection system in the excavated south area to create a rehabilitated (lined) cell.
2
3
15Workshop No. 1
The Proposed UndertakingStage IIg
Construct a bottom liner and leachate collection system in the expansion area, once approved
4
Numbers in circles on the figure are explained in the notes below:
once approved.
Ongoing disposal of relocated and new waste in the lined cell areas. 5
16Workshop No. 1
The Proposed UndertakingStage IIIg
Numbers in circles on the figure are explained in the notes below:
Excavate remainder of the existing older waste in the east part of the landfill footprint, and co‐dispose with the new waste generation.
Construct a bottom liner and leachate collection system in the remainder of the
6
7
g p
Construct a bottom liner and leachate collection system in the remainder of the excavated eastern area.
Ongoing waste disposal in the lined cell areas.
7
8
17Workshop No. 1
The Proposed UndertakingStage IVStage IV
Fill the expanded landfill to the approved final shape and grades through 2023, with progressive placement of final cover as disposal
9
Numbers in circles on the figure are explained in the notes below:
g , p g p pin areas of the landfill is sequentially completed.
18Workshop No. 1
Section 2.3 Identification of Alternative Methods
In EA terminology, “Alternative methods” are the different ways the remediation and continued operations of the Brighton Landfill could be implemented.
Alternative methods for the undertaking will include a combination of a creation of physical capacity (i.e., waste volume or air space) and implementation of long‐term environmental protection
The following basic approaches are considered to reasonably cover the range of “alternative methods” for the undertaking: Horizontal expansion with a suitably engineered liner, leachate collection and
final cover design in the expanded area.term environmental protection measures.
A sufficient degree of environmental protection measures will be required for the Site to ensure it performs acceptably
final cover design in the expanded area. Provision of a suitable engineered liner, leachate collection system (LCS) and
final cover design in the old cell area in conjunction with waste excavation in the old cells.
Vertical expansion above the existing and expanded approved footprint. p p y
in the future in terms of effects on off‐site groundwater and surface water.
These requirements are set out in O. Reg. 232/98 Landfill Standards, which govern h i d l f h
During the EA, the amount of additional airspace required will be assessed; the land area envelopes available for horizontal expansion will be identified;
and h l f d h dd l d l d fthe required approvals for the
undertaking
For more information on this topic, refer to Section 2.3 of the draft TOR
The Alternatives for providing the additional airspace and enlarged footprint will be developed.
A comparative evaluation of Alternatives for implementing the project will be completed.
19Workshop No. 1
TOR Section 3.0
Section 3.1 Study Areas
Section 3.2 Environmental Components
Section 3.3 Overview of Existing Environmental Conditions
20Workshop No. 1
Section 3.1 Study Areas
On‐Site: The lands owned by the County of Northumberland that represents the boundary of the Brighton Landfill site The
Study AreasTwo generic study areas for the EA are shown and described below.
represents the boundary of the Brighton Landfill site. The Brighton Landfill Site is located in part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 2 in the Municipality of Brighton with a total Site area of 22.8 hectares with an approved landfilling area of 13.4 hectares; and
Site‐vicinity: The lands in the vicinity of the site extending about 500 m in all directions.
These are generic study areas that will be modified during the EA to suit the requirements of each environmental component.
Each technical discipline will modify the study area as required (e.g., surface water study area will extend along watershed boundaries beyond the 500 m limit).
Do you agree with the extent of the on‐site and site‐vicinity study areas?
I agree (why?)_______________________ I disagree (why?)_____________________ Other ______________________________ No comment
21Workshop No. 1
No comment
Section 3.2 Environmental Components
Various aspects or components of the environment will be studied and used to assess potential effects of Alternative ways that the project could be implemented.
The following table lists common environmental and socio economic criteria that are often The following table lists common environmental and socio‐economic criteria that are often studied in similar EAs.
You will be invited to provide input on the studies that should be undertaken during the EA in order to understand and assess potential effects of the project.
Environmental CriteriaAtmospheric Environment
Air quality, Noise, Odour
Geology & Hydrogeology
Groundwater quality
Socio‐Economic CriteriaEconomic Continued service to residents
Employment and economicsSocial Visual aestheticsHydrogeology
Surface Water Resources
Surface water quality, Surface water quantity
Biology Terrestrial ecosystems, Aquatic ecosystems
Cultural and Cultural landscape, Built heritage,
Aboriginal Community Interest
Potential effects on Aboriginal communities
Heritage Resources Archaeological resourcesLand Use Effects on current and planned future
land usesAgriculture Effects on agricultural land and
agricultural operations
22Workshop No. 1
Section 3.2 Evaluation Criteria
The EA process will study and compare alternative methods of implementing the project by
Proposed Assessment CriteriaEnvironmental Component
Criteria Very
ImportantImportant
Less Important
Please indicate relative importance of assessment criteria.
methods of implementing the project by comparing environmental data. We have identified the following components of the environment for study.
p p pAtmospheric Environment
Air qualityNoiseOdour
Geology & Hydrogeology
Groundwater quality
Surface Water Surface water qualityAre there additional components of the environment Surface Water Resources
Surface water qualitySurface water quantity
Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment
Terrestrial ecosystemsAquatic ecosystems
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Cultural landscapeBuilt heritageArchaeological resources
pthat we should study? ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________
ld f l h d f dd d Archaeological resourcesLand Use Effects on current and
planned future land usesAgriculture Effects on agricultural
land and agricultural operations
S i i C ti d i t
Would you prefer to see Health and Safety addressed as a separate, stand‐alone environmental component or incorporated as part of the other components (e.g., air, groundwater, surface water)? Assess as a separate environmental component Socio‐economic Continued service to
residentsEmployment and economicsVisual aesthetics
Aboriginal Community Potential effects on
component Assess as a part of the other components
Workshop No. 1
Interest Aboriginal communities
23
TOR Section 4.0
Section 4.0 Assessment Methodology
Appendix A Work Plans
24Workshop No. 1
Section 4.0 Assessment Methodology
The assessment and evaluation of Alternatives will consist of the following steps:
Identify and describe alternative configurations for the expanded landfill;
Describe the environment potentially affected by each Alternative in relation to the proposed criteria Describe the environment potentially affected by each Alternative in relation to the proposed criteria, indicators and data sources;
Conduct a preliminary assessment of effects of the landfill and determine mitigation measures for each Alternative as necessary;
Do you agree with the proposed assessment methodology?
I agree (why?)_______________________ I disagree (why?)_____________________
Predict environmental effects for each Alternative, taking into account mitigation measures, and indentifying residual adverse and beneficial effects;
Conduct screening to eliminate or alter Alternatives, if No comment Other ______________________________
Conduct screening to eliminate or alter Alternatives, if appropriate;
Conduct a comparative evaluation of Alternatives, considering the relative importance of the evaluation criteria established with public input during the development of this TOR; and
Identify the preferred Alternative, which then becomes the proposed undertaking.
25Workshop No. 1
Appendix A Work Plans
Work plans contain the general methodology to conduct assessment of the individual components of the EA.
The proposed work plans will be refined during the EA in consultation with the government review team (GRT). The public will be given an opportunity to provide input on the detailed work plans during the EA.
The outcome of the EA, which will be carried out in accordance with the approved TOR, will involve ppthe identification of the preferred undertaking.
Do you have any general comments regarding the work plansDo you have any general comments regarding the work plans at this time?
I agree (why?)_______________________ I disagree (why?)_____________________ Other Other ______________________________ No comment
26Workshop No. 1
TOR Section 4.0
Section 5.0 Consultation
Consultation during the development of the TOR and throughout the EA i l i t f ti iti Th l l itEA process involves a variety of activities. The local community, neighbours, municipalities, Aboriginal communities and interested parties are invited to become involved through participation at open houses, workshops and meetings. Information will be available through the County’s internet site, newsletters, phone, email, and g y pinformal meetings.
27Workshop No. 1
Section 5.0 Consultation during the TOR and EA
How would you like to be consulted during the Environmental Assessment? Open Houses similar to those held during the Terms of
Reference ProcessReference Process Workshops for more detailed discussion Meetings Send me information packages by mail email
(please include your contact information below) Other ______________________________ No comments
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of PrivacyUnder the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the EAA, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in a submission will become part of the public records files for this matter and will be released, if requested, to any person.
Workshop No. 1 28
, f q , y p
Section 5.0 Consultation during the TOR and EA
TOR Open House #1Was held in Brighton on June 23, 2010 from 3:00 ‐ 9:00 p.m. at the Brighton Legion to present information on and discuss the proposed TOR and to provide an overview of the EA process. p p
TOR Open House #2Was held on October 7, 2010 from 4:00 ‐ 9:00 p.m. at the Brighton Community Centre in Brighton. The draft TOR will be presented and discussed at this event.
TOR WorkshopOn November 10, 2010 from 6:00 – 9:00 p.m. At this event, various aspects of the draft TOR will be discussed in greater detail and participants will get an opportunity to provide input and comments.
EA Open House #4Will be held to present and receive feedback on the comparative evaluation of Alternatives and identification of the preferred Alternative.
EA Open House #5Will be held to discuss outstanding issues that have been important to members of the public throughout the EA process
Workshop No. 1 29
p g p
Next Steps
There are a lot of opportunities for you to get involved in the process and make your views known.
Over the summer, we have developed a draft Terms of Reference for the proposed undertaking.
We will post information on the County’s web site and be available to meet with people individually or in groups to discuss the project.
After we receive your comments on the draft TOR we will consider, address and incorporate your input and prepare the final TOR for submission to the Minister of the Environment.
We expect that the TOR will be submitted in the late fall or early winter of this year.
There will be another opportunity for you to provide input on the TOR after it is submitted.
Please visit our website:http://www.northumberlandcounty.ca/BrightonLandfillEA
E i t l A t S h d lEnvironmental Assessment Schedule
Submission of this draft TOR for the proposed undertaking occurs in late October.
The submission of the final TOR will occur in the late fall or early winter of 2010.
EA timelines are dependent on the Minister’s decision on the TOR and the EA cannot proceed without an approved TOR.
A decision on the approval of the TOR is anticipated during early spring of 2011. Collection of baseline data will be initiated in early 2011 and will continue until 2012. The EA is expected to be completed and the application documents submitted in 2012.
Workshop No. 1 30
