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 $SSURYHG$PHQGHG Terms of Reference

1195 Stellar Drive, Unit #1 Newmarket Ontario L3Y 7B8 Canada11102771 | Report No 16 | 1RYHPEHU9

November 16, 2017 Reference No. 11102771

Dear Madam/Sir:

RE: Approved Amended Terms of Reference Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Terrapure Environmental Please find attached the amended Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) Environmental Assessment (EA) approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (Minister) on November 9, 2017. As per the Notice of Approval, the amended ToR has been revised to include the amendment specified by the Minister in his approval.

Specifically, Subsection 2.1.1 Receiving Post-Diversion Material at the SCRF has been amended as follows:

From: Proposed Amended Terms of Reference (May 9, 2017)

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 match the Generator’s Waste Profile, and that the Generator of the material has made the determination that the material cannot reasonably be diverted. 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. Regardless, in the spirit of the Province’s new Waste Free Ontario Act (WFOA) that sets goals to increase diversion in Ontario, Terrapure will review the potential for on-site diversion as part of the SCRF EA, (i.e., viability and financial feasibility of diversion for the types of materials received at the site currently). Terrapure will also work with its customers to continue to ensure diversion at the source of the generated material takes place.

Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility 65 Green Mountain Road West, Hamilton, Ontario L8J 1X5 Canada T 1-844-898-2380 W www.terrapurestonecreek.com

To: Approved Amended Terms of Reference (November 9, 2017)

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 match the Generator’s Waste Profile, and that the Generator of the material has made the determination that the material cannot reasonably be diverted. 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. Although there is minimal waste material received at the SCRF that has the potential to be reasonably diverted or recycled, Terrapure will examine and evaluate the feasibility and viability of implementing an onsite diversion program as part of the environmental assessment process. This will include the consideration and assessment of a reasonable number of ways in which to divert the types of waste materials received at site. The assessment of an onsite diversion program will be carried out in accordance with best management practices, in consideration of new and emerging technologies, and in recognition of the goals and expectations set forth in the Waste Free Ontario Act.

Kind Regards, GHD

Blair Shoniker, MA, RPP Project Manager Office: 905-429-5040 Mobile: 647-525-9798

On behalf of Terrapure Environmental

Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility 65 Green Mountain Road West, Hamilton, Ontario L8J 1X5 Canada T 1-844-898-2380 W www.terrapurestonecreek.com

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, non- hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 cubic metres (m3) 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 decision- making process to be followed during the preparation of the SCRF Environmental Assessment (EA).

Currently, the SCRF is approved to receive up to 6,320,000 m3 of post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material and approximately 2,000,000 m3 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 for this material by 3,680,000 m3. 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.

As part of the ToR preparation and review process, Terrapure took time to amend the Proposed ToR to incorporate additional information based on comments received during the 30-day Proposed ToR review period. The following table summarizes the amendments made to the Proposed ToR.

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

Summary of Amendments

Summary of Amendment Amended Section of the Proposed Terms of Reference

The approved service area for the Stoney Creek Section 1.0 – Introduction Regional Facility (SCRF) was clarified

The environmental protection provided at the SCRF Section 2.1 – History of the Stoney Creek was clarified and its operating history was modified. Facility

Terrapure’s Standard Operating Procedures was Section 2.1.1 – Receiving Post-Diversion included Material at the SCRF

The potential viability and feasibility for on-site Section 2.1.1 – Receiving Post-Diversion diversion at the SCRF was added Material at the SCRF

The roles and responsibilities of Terrapure’s Section 2.1.1 – Receiving Post-Diversion Environmental Technicians at the SCRF were added Material at the SCRF

The purpose of the undertaking was included Section 3 – Identification of How the EA will be Prepared

The application of the Ministry’s Codes of Practice to Section 3 – Identification of How the EA private sector proponents was clarified will be Prepared

The Purpose/Opportunity Statement was modified to Section 3.1 – Purpose/Opportunity clarify the approved service area of the SCRF and a Statement commitment was made to review and finalize the Problem/Opportunity Statement as part of the SCRF EA.

The title of Figure 5.1 was amended Section 5.1 – Description of the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking

The “Do Nothing” alternative was included Section 5.1 – Description of the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking

A commitment to carry out an assessment of the Section 5.1 – Description of the existing leachate collection and treatment system as Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the part of the SCRF EA relative to the Alternative Undertaking Methods was made.

A commitment to update the 2011 Landfill Gas Section 5.1 – Description of the Assessment as part of the SCRF EA based on the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Preferred Method was made. Undertaking

Clarification was provided regarding the review, Section 6.1 – Preliminary Study Area modification and finalization of the preliminary study area as part of the SCRF EA.

A discussion on Source Water Protection was Section 6.2.1 – Natural Environment included

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

A description of the air quality conditions in the final Section 6.2.1 – Natural Environment environmental assessment study area will be provided as part of the SCRF EA.

The description of Atmospheric (Air and Noise) was Section 6.2.3 – Social Environment moved from Section 6.2.3 to Section 6.2.1

A reference to previous EA correspondence in Section 6.2.5 – Cultural Environment Supporting Document #2 was provided and the procedures to be followed upon the discovery of archaeological resources during other field investigations carried out as part of the SCRF EA was included.

The consideration of human health effects to be Section 6.2.6.1 – Available Existing assessed as part of the SCRF EA was included. Information Sources

The commitment to analyze the potential effects to Section 6.2.6.2 – Investigative Studies human health during alternative methods assessment and evaluation utilizing the existing data and methodology established as part of the on-going SRCF Community Health Assessment was made.

Table 6.1 – Potential Environmental Effects was Section 6.2.6.3 – Potential Effects modified to include the following potential effects: Natural Environment: • Temporary and/or permanent change in air quality Social Environment: • Potential effects to human health Economic Environment: • Increase in capital/ operating cost at the SCRF

Clarification was provided on the finalization of the Section 7.1.1.1 – Assessment of preliminary criteria and indicators Alternative Methods

Clarification was provided regarding the development Section 7.1.1.1 – Assessment of of the impact management measures as part of the Alternative Methods SCRF EA.

The rationale for each review agency’s involvement in Section 9.1.1 – Review Agencies, the preparation of the proposed ToR was provided. Aboriginal Communities and the Public Consulted (Table 9.1)

The process for identifying which Aboriginal Section 9.1.1 – Review Agencies, Communities were consulted as part of the ToR Aboriginal Communities and the Public process was provided Consulted

The “Notification of Amended Terms of Reference” Section 9.1.2 – Consultation Activities was added. carried Out with Review Agencies, Aboriginal Communities and the Public

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

The Section heading “9.1.2 Summary of Results of Section 9.1.3 – Results of Consultation Consulting with Stakeholders” was revised to “9.1.3 with Review Agencies, Aboriginal Results of Consultation with Review Agencies, Communities and the Public Aboriginal Communities and the Public”

The number of review agencies providing comments Section 9.1.3 – Results of Consultation during preparation of the Propose ToR was revised with Review Agencies, Aboriginal from seven to eleven. Communities and the Public

Table 9.2 – Summary of Comments Received from Section 9.1.3 – Results of Consultation Review Agencies was added with Review Agencies, Aboriginal Communities and the Public

Table 9.3 – Summary of Comments Received from Section 9.1.3 – Results of Consultation Aboriginal Communities was added with Review Agencies, Aboriginal Communities and the Public

Section 9.1.4 Comments Received on the Proposed Section 9.1.4 – Comments Received on Terms of Reference and Table 9.4 – Summary of the Proposed Terms of Reference Comments Received from Review Agencies, were added

A commitment was added to develop a more detailed Section 9.2.4 – Proposed Issues issue resolution strategy as part of the SCRF EA. Resolution Strategy

Additional aspects were added for flexibility in Section 10 – Flexibility of this Terms of accommodating new circumstances that may arise Reference during preparation of the SCRF EA

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

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 4

2. Identification of the Proponent ...... 6 2.1 History of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility ...... 6 2.1.1 Receiving Post-Diversion Material at the SCRF ...... 7 2.1.2 Amendments to the SCRF ECA ...... 8 2.1.2.1 Annual Waste Receipts and Service Area ...... 8 2.1.2.2 Landfill Footprint Reconfiguration ...... 8

3. Identification of How the EA will be Prepared ...... 11 3.1 Purpose/Opportunity Statement ...... 13

4. Description of and Rationale for the Undertaking ...... 14

5. Description of and Rationale for the Alternative Methods ...... 14 5.1 Description of the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking ...... 14 5.2 Rationale for the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking ...... 22

6. Description of the Environment and Potential Effects ...... 23 6.1 Preliminary Study Area ...... 23 6.2 Preliminary Description of the Environment...... 25 6.2.1 Natural Environment ...... 25 6.2.2 Built Environment...... 28 6.2.3 Social Environment ...... 30 6.2.4 Economic Environment ...... 31 6.2.5 Cultural Environment ...... 32 6.2.6 Detailed Description of the Environment ...... 32 6.2.6.1 Available Existing Information Sources ...... 32 6.2.6.2 Investigative Studies ...... 34 6.2.6.3 Potential Effects ...... 35

7. Description of the Assessment and Evaluation Methodology ...... 37 7.1 Alternative Methods of Carrying out the Undertaking ...... 37 7.1.1 Assessment and Comparative Evaluation of the Alternative Methods ...... 37 7.1.1.1 Assessment of Alternative Methods ...... 37 7.1.1.2 Comparative Evaluation of the Alternative Methods and Selection of the Recommended Method ...... 38 7.1.2 Identification of the Preferred Method ...... 38 7.2 Impact Assessment of the Preferred Method ...... 38 7.3 Closure and Post Closure ...... 39

8. Commitments and Monitoring ...... 39 8.1 ToR and EA Commitments ...... 39 8.2 Environmental Effects and EA Compliance Monitoring ...... 39

9. Terms of Reference Consultation & Consultation Plan for the Terrapure SCRF EA ...... 40 9.1 Terms of Reference Consultation ...... 40

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

Table of Contents

9.1.1 Review Agencies, Aboriginal Communities and the Public Consulted ...... 40 9.1.2 Consultation Activities Carried Out with Review Agencies, Aboriginal Communities and the Public ...... 44 9.1.3 Results of Consulting with Review Agencies, Aboriginal Communities and the Public ...... 47 9.1.4 Comments Received on the Proposed Terms of Reference ...... 50 9.2 Proposed EA Consultation Plan ...... 54 9.2.1 Proposed Consultation Activities ...... 54 9.2.2 Obtaining Input from Interested Participants ...... 55 9.2.3 Key Decision-Making Milestones when Consultation Will Occur ...... 56 9.2.4 Proposed Issues Resolution Strategy ...... 57

10. Flexibility of this Terms of Reference ...... 57

11. Other Approvals Required ...... 59

Figure Index

Figure 1.1 Site Location ...... 5 Figure 2.1 2013 Amendment to ECA ...... 10 Figure 5.1 Existing SCRF Approvals ...... 15 Figure 5.2 Alternative Method No. 1 ...... 16 Figure 5.3 Alternative Method No. 2 ...... 17 Figure 5.4 Alternative Method No. 3 ...... 18 Figure 5.5 Alternative Method No. 4 ...... 19 Figure 5.6 Alternative Method No. 5 ...... 20 Figure 5.7 Alternative Method No. 6 ...... 21 Figure 6.1 Preliminary Study Area ...... 24

Table Index

Table 6.1 – Potential Environmental Effects ...... 36

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

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 Supporting Document #2 Previous EA Documentation/Correspondence on Cultural Heritage

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

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 approved site capacity of 8,320,000 cubic metres (m3) (6,320,000 m3 for solid, non-hazardous residual material and approximately 2,000,000 m3 for industrial fill), with an approved maximum annual volume of 750,000 tonnes of residual material. The approved service area for the SCRF is the Province of Ontario, which will not change as a result of this EA.

Terrapure is proposing to increase the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 cubic metres (m3) 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 waste management facility by more than 100,000 m3, 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) | 4 k r e D e D r M r d o l e nte D King St E C e r i e f d l e k l

e t A i t t n e f ta Dr d D a nd St S S v e e

r r l 2 e t B e A v w t Maple Ave oma Dr

A s a r D n L Boni r Av r

D e B N ll e y k a E l a N ti a e d w o Leslie Dr w r na W R i l r a Mo n D Wyngate e u F d r n o p t

i R ain

p R M d

lb Ridge Rd

y s U

a A r e e

l r

t r D g C

n i c Stoney

u b u Centennial

o u l la

G Q e l Creek M C r ee r nh y ill r D Ave t ll n i Pl u H r Pky o r e e v C k o n n r u a D B H ard H ildeg

o D

Alt

St N ubon ud A Ackland St

S A Rd W t t m S b ubon 1s e Aud r w o o d St Mistywood mount Dr Dr Green Para Mountain Chilton Dr Rd E Mud St W

Belleau St

E a d entur D V n R r Ra d Ran d S 1st St t

Isaac Brock D G o r r d e o v n Drum A D mond o l m t Pky Mud an S St E

s Lo e neoa r s k C e Si r H Upper Centennial dney C ighland Rd W Hillcroft Dr

Ave

ar ie lg d l en D i e r r H t D r Leck a D g e F 2nd Rd E n ox hbury Dr i n tro r o t D g t r E s Hi Rd W e t a 2nd G H ighland Rd E

s B e a r Rym nkfie al Rd ld C E Lake Ontario

HAMILTON Si nkho C le reek Legend Reg Rd SITE 20 Site SITE Preliminary Study Area (1.5km)

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)

TERRAPURE 11102771 0 200 400 600 STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY EA Feb 8, 2017 Meters 65 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD WEST Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N FIGURE SITE LOCATION 1.1

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

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 capacity under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) approvals is 6,320,000 m3 for residual materials, with an additional allowance for acceptance of approximately 2,000,000 m3 of industrial fill/soils, for a site total of 8,320,000 m3. 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 groundwater protection and leachate collection 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. The facility operates in accordance with the requirements of its ECA and other applicable provincial legislation.

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.

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,

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 6

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 1 received a MOECC exemption0F 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 match the Generator’s Waste Profile, and that the Generator of the material has made the determination that the material cannot reasonably be diverted. 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. Although there is minimal waste material received at the SCRF that has the potential to be reasonably diverted or recycled, Terrapure will examine and evaluate the feasibility and viability of implementing an onsite diversion program as part of the environmental assessment process. This will include the consideration and assessment of a reasonable number of ways in which to divert the types of waste materials received at site. The assessment of an onsite diversion program will be carried out in accordance with best management practices, in consideration of new and emerging technologies, and in recognition of the goals and expectations set forth in the Waste Free Ontario Act.

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.

1 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.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 7

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.

Environmental Technicians (ET) at the SCRF investigate material, and if they deem it non-compliant, the ET informs Terrapure site management of this finding. Terrapure then contacts the Generator to notify them of non-compliant material and offers the Generator the option of returning material to the generator site or if applicable, have the material sent to another facility that can receive and process the material. The non-compliant material is then removed from site and Terrapure issues an internal rejection report. The load rejections are also summarized in the Annual Monitoring Reports submitted to the MOECC.

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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 8

(6,320,000 m3), 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 m3 of fill to complete the final site grading in the area of the site that would no longer receive residual 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.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 9 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD

EX. LEACHATE COLLECTION POND PROJECT Stoney Creek Landfill SITE OFFICE L.M.F. FOREBAY Reconfiguration Newalta Stoney Creek Landfill 65 Green Mountain Road Stoney Creek, Ontario L8J 1X5 EX. 3 CULVERTS EXISTING SCALE HOUSE EXISTING SCALE TO BE CROSSING DRIVEWAY SITE OFFICE TO BE RELOCATED FILL IN EXISTING SUMP RELOCATED

M.C. WITH CLEAR STONE LANDFILL MAINTENANCE RECONFIGURATION BERM ENTRANCE CLIENT TRUCK WASH EX. ACCESS ROAD AND EXIT SUMP

(TO BE MAINTAINED) ACCESS ROAD EX. ACCESS ROAD Newalta Corporation 1100 Burloak Drive, 5th Floor V.W. Burlington, Ontario L7L 6B2 LANDFILL 800 263 8602 tel ENTRANCE (TO BE MAINTAINED) 213.0 CONSULTANT

RECONFIGURATION BERM AECOM

EX. ACCESS ROAD 214.0 300 - 300 Town Centre Blvd. Markham, ON L3R 5Z 6 EXISTING SPOIL 905 477 8400 tel 905 477 1456 fax STOCKPILE TO REMAIN ACCESS ROAD 215.0 www.aecom.com LEGEND:

LIMIT OF LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD ACCESS PERIMETER DRAINAGE DITCH 216.0 PROPOSED TOP OF WASTE 216.0 CONTOURS AND ELEVATION

PROPOSED TOP OF GRADED FILL 217.0 204.0 MATERIAL CONTOURS AND ELEVATION

30m BUFFER ZONE 202.5 218.0 218.5 AREA FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PONDS

AREA OF CONSTRUCTED FINAL COVER

206.75 215.0 214.0 216.0 218.4 218.0 217.0 216.0 215.0 214.0 213.0 213.0

206.5

FIRST ROAD WEST 203.0 HIGHWAY #20

204.0

205.0 207.0 217.0 218.0

206.0

217.0

216.0

REGISTRATION 215.0

214.0

213.0

212.0 ISSUE/REVISION

211.0

210.0

B August 2013 Issued for Final Report 209.0 A July 2013 Issued for Client Review I/R DATE DESCRIPTION 208.0 PROJECT NUMBER 60290994

DRAWING TITLE 2013 AMENDMENT TO ECA

0 40.0m 160.0m FIGURE NUMBER MUD STREET SCALE = 1:4000 2.1 Filename: P:\60290994\900-CAD-GIS\910 CAD_BIM\02-SHEETS\RECONFIGUREATION-D-O-FIGURES-FINAL\60290994-FIG-05_RB.DWG by: Last saved WANGV Last Plotted: 2013-08-29

Printed on ___% Post-Consumer Recycled Content Paper

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:

• Purpose of the undertaking (Section 3.1)

• 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 requirement of the alternatives to the undertaking in the preparation of the SCRF EA. Supporting Document #1 provides the rationale for excluding the 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 2 the range of alternatives it may examine. 1F

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 ministry recognizes that there may be restrictions on some proponents that will limit the range of alternatives examined. The proponent must provide justification in the terms of reference for limiting the examination of alternatives.

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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 11

For example, a municipality and a private sector proponent would both like to increase waste disposal capacity in a semi-rural community. The municipality might consider one or more of the following as a reasonable range of alternatives to:

• Waste diversion program;

• Export; • Landfill; or,

• Thermal technology.

The private sector proponent may only consider landfill or on-site diversion because:

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

• Export would affect their business; and, • Thermal technology is not economically viable because waste volumes are too small. • Alternative methods for the municipality could include a site selection process for the alternative chosen, as they have the ability to expropriate land. For a private sector proponent, there may 3 be different designs on one site as they only own one site and cannot expropriate.2F

Rationale for Excluding 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.

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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 12

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 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

The purpose of the undertaking is to increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m3 so that Terrapure can continue to receive post diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated predominantly within the Hamilton & Greater Toronto Area (H>A). Currently, the SCRF is approved to receive up to 6,320,000 m3 of post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material and approximately 2,000,000 m3 of industrial fill. The approved service area for the SCRF is the Province of Ontario, which will not change as a result of this EA. 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.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 13

for this material by 3,680,000 m3. 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 purpose statement will be reviewed and finalized as part of preparing the SCRF EA.

4. Description of and Rationale for the Undertaking

The preliminary description of the proposed undertaking is an expansion of the existing SCRF so as to increase its approved capacity by 3,680,000 m3 to receive additional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated predominantly 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 capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m3 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 approved areas at the SCRF for receiving industrial fill and residual material for context purposes.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 14

Figure 5.1 Existing Approved Areas at the SCRF for Industrial Fill and Residual Material

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 15

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

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

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. Figure 5.3 Alternative Method No. 2

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 17

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. Figure 5.4 Alternative Method No. 3

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 18

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. Figure 5.5 Alternative Method No. 4

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 19

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. Figure 5.6 Alternative Method No. 5

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 20

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. Figure 5.7 Alternative Method No. 6

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 21

The intent of each of the preceding Alternative Methods is to provide a maximum increase in capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material of 3,680,000 m3 at the SCRF. In addition, a “Do Nothing” alternative will be included as part of the SCRF EA to represent what is expected to happen if none of the Alternative Methods being considered is carried out. Although the “Do Nothing” alternative does not address the Purpose of the Undertaking and is therefore not a viable option, it is included in EAs as a matter of best practice to represent the benchmark against which the advantages and disadvantages of the Alternative Methods being considered can be measured and compared.

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

An assessment of the existing leachate collection and treatment system relative to the Alternative Methods will be carried out as part of the SCRF EA to determine if any modifications or additions are required. Any modifications or additions to the existing leachate collection and treatment system that are required for the preferred Method will be identified as part of 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 under its current ECA (as previously described in Section 2.1 of this ToR). Under the current ECA for the SCRF, Terrapure is required to monitor for landfill gas and provide the results in the Annual Monitoring Report submitted to the MOECC June 30th every calendar year. A Landfill Gas Assessment was conducted in 2011, demonstrating that very little gas is generated at the SCRF. Notwithstanding this, an update of the 2011 Assessment will be carried out as part of the SCRF EA to determine the necessity or lack thereof of landfill gas collection system being required for the Preferred Method.

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 3,680,000 m3 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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 22

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.

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.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 23 k r e D e D r M r d o l e nte D King St E C e r i e f d l e k l

e t A i t t n e f d D a nd St S S v e e

r r l 2 e t B e A v w t Maple Ave oma Dr

A s a r D n L Bonita Dr r Av r

D e B N ll e y k a E l a N ti a e d w o Leslie Dr w r na W R i l r a Mo n D Wyngate e u F d r n o p t

i R ain

p R M d

lb Ridge Rd

y s U

a A r e e

l r

t r D g C

n i c Stone

u b u Centennial y

o u l la

G Q e l Creek M C r ee r nh y ill r D Ave t ll n i Pl u H r Pky o r e e v C k o n n r u a D B H ard H ildeg

o D

Alt

St N ubon ud A Ackland St

S A Rd W t t m S b ubon 1s e Aud r w o o d St Mistywood mount Dr Dr Green Para Mountain Chilton Dr Rd E Mud St W

Belleau St

E a d entur D V n R r Ra d Ran d S 1st St t

Isaac Brock D G o r r d e o v n Drum A D mond o l m t Pky Mud an S St E

s Lo e neoa r s k C e Si r H Upper Centennial dney C ighland Rd W Hillcroft Dr

Ave

ar ie lg d l en i D ck e r r H t D r Le a D g e F 2nd Rd E n ox hbury Dr i n tro r o t D g t r E s Hi Rd W e t a 2nd G H ighland Rd E

s B e a r Rym nkfie al Rd ld C E Lake Ontario

HAMILTON Si nkho C le reek Legend Reg Rd SITE 20 Site SITE Preliminary Study Area (1.5km)

TERRAPURE 11102771 0 200 400 600 STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY EA Feb 8, 2017 Meters 65 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD WEST Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N FIGURE PRELIMINARY STUDY AREA 6.1

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

The preliminary study area will be reviewed, modified (as required), and finalized during preparation of the SCRF EA when the Alternative Methods have been confirmed, a more detailed description of the environment has been prepared reflecting field investigations and the potential environmental effects (both direct and indirect) are better known including their extent.

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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 25

• 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.

According to the Source Protection Plan for the Halton Region Source Protection Area and the Hamilton Region Source Protection Area, Version 3.2, (Approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change on August 5, 2015), the Preliminary Study Area is located in the Hamilton Source Water Protection area. The Woodward Intake Protection Zone designation IPZ-2 touches the boundary of the Preliminary Study Area, however the delineation of the IPZ-2 inland were determined via professional judgment and were taken to the foot of the Niagara Escarpment. The Source Protection Plan notes that the delination is conservative and once appropriate data is collected, the IPZ-2 for the Woodward intake will be refined and reported on in an update Source Protection Assessment Report. It should also be noted that the Source Protection Plan does not identify any significant threats to the Woodward Intake beyond (i.e. above) the Niagara Escarpment including the existing SCRF.

The Preliminary Study Area also includes areas delineated as highly vulnerable aquifers and significant groundwater recharge areas, although the Source Water Protection Report notes the following:

“Limited data is available for review to understand the localized impacts to source water within the mapped areas of highly vulnerable aquifers and significant groundwater recharge areas. Future updates to this Assessment Report will include the results of these assessments.” (Section 7.1.3)

There are no Wellhead Protection Zones within the Preliminary Study Area.

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.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 26

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.

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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 27

indicated that the ambient one-hour Leq sound levels during the daytime periods ranged from 56 dBA to 63 dBA.

A description of the air quality conditions in the final environmental assessment study area will be provided as part of 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 exists 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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 28

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.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 29

6.2.3 Social Environment

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)

Neighbourhoods & 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 4 Hamilton3F . 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 5 2031 4F .

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 to 50.9 percent of the total population of Hamilton7. As of the 2011 census, the top three ethnicities within Ward 9 included English, Canadian, and Scottish7. A total of 22 percent of Ward 9 residents identified as immigrants, of which 1.3 percent were considered recent immigrants in 20117.

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.

4 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 5 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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 30

6.2.4 Economic Environment

Local Employment, Labour Supply and Economic Base

6 In 2011, the total labour force aged 15 years and over within Ward 9 totaled 14,5805F . 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, agriculture, and related production” (16.7 percent)8.

The unemployment rate within Ward 9 was 7.3 percent (as compared to 8.7 percent for Hamilton) in 20118.

The SCRF directly employees approximately 13 people on a full-time basis.

7 The current SCRF site generates the following economic benefits for the wider Hamilton area6F :

• $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 Industrial “ME” Zone, lands zoned ME-1 are permitted for operations associated with 8 non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources 7F .

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

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 7 RIAS Inc., 2017. Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility. 440 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 200, Ottawa ON. 8 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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 31

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 9 impacting cultural heritage resources on-site8F . Supporting Document #2 contains the previous EA documentation/ correspondence from the appropriate reviewers supporting this information. 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. Notwithstanding the above, should any potential archaeological resources be discovered during other field investigations (i.e. geological), the MTCS will be contacted and any required archaeological assessment work will be undertaken. Further, Terrapure will also notify potentially affected Aboriginal communities should any potential archaeological resources be discovered during other field investigations.

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 SCRF 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.

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. An evaluation of potential health effects from expected operations at the SCRF (then Taro Landfill) was originally presented in the Community Health Assessment Study prepared by Intrinsik Environmental Sciences Inc. (formerly operating as Cantox) in 1996. This study was based on the data available at the time (1995), and was found to support the position that the operation of the proposed Landfill posed no significant health risk to the community of Stoney Creek. The ongoing requirements of the current approval for operation of the

9 Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation letter to Taro Aggregates East Quarry EA, July 5, 1994

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 32

SCRF include a rigorous analysis and interpretation of monitoring data, which is prepared and submitted to the MOECC as part of the Annual Monitoring Report for the SCRF. The objective of this review process is to continue to assure the Regulators (i.e. MOECC), the City of Hamilton and the local community that the Landfill represents an insignificant and non-measurable potential impact to human and environmental health. This evaluation of the groundwater, surface water, leachate and air quality monitoring data involves several important activities, including:

1. A comparison of the results of the chemical analyses from the monitoring program from the preceding year against original assumptions made in the Community Health Assessment Study of 1995; 2. An assessment of new chemicals identified by routine monitoring for potential health risks, and the reassessment of chemicals detected at concentrations higher, or lower than those considered in the original Health Assessment Study; and, 3. A review of recent toxicological literature for changes to the exposure limits applied to chemicals described in the Health Assessment Study, and to identify exposure limits for all new chemicals of concern.

The annual Community Health Assessment study reviews the cumulative impacts of ongoing monitoring data of key parameters that could impact the health of the local community. The annual Report generated based on this study has consistently determined that, there is no reason to believe that either air or leachate quality as determined from on-site monitoring at the Terrapure 10 Stoney Creek Regional Facility pose an adverse level of risk to community health9F . Given that the studies in the EA will be completed and be benchmarked against human health parameters, such as air quality and groundwater, Terrapure will not only continue to complete the annual Community Health Assessment Review as part of the ongoing operation of the SCRF (as required under the current approvals), but will also utilize the existing data and methodology established as part of the Community Health Assessment for the past 20 years, to analyze the potential effects to human health during the alternative methods assessment and evaluation. It is important to reiterate that the proposal would not change the type or annual volume of residual materials currently accepted at the facility.

The annual 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 operations10F .

In addition to utilizing the annual Community Health Assessment Review, other available existing information sources that were utilized and may be used in the SCRF EA include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Environment Canada and MOECC hourly meteorological data

• Emissions Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) reports

• Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN)

• MOECC water well records

10 Community Health Assessment Review – Terrapure Stone Creek Regional Facility, June 2016, Page iii 11 HPHS letter to the Terrapure CLC Health Sub-Committee, dated February 29, 2012

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 33

• 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

• 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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 34

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.

In addition, as described in Section 6.2.6.1, given that the proposal would not change the type or annual volume of residual materials currently accepted at the facility, Terrapure will continue to complete an annual Community Health Assessment Review as part of the ongoing operation of the SCRF (as required under the current approvals), and will also utilize the existing data and methodology established as part of the Community Health Assessment for the past 20 years, to analyze the potential effects to human health during the alternative methods assessment and evaluation.

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.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 35

Table 6.1 – Potential Environmental Effects Natural Built Social Economic Cultural • Temporary • Temporary or • Temporary or • Changes to • Disturbance to and/or permanent permanent approved/ lands with long-term disruption to disturbance planned land significant change in residences, to sensitive uses affected archaeological groundwater businesses, receptors due • Increase in potential quality and/or and/or community, to dust, capital/ (i.e., lands quantity institutional, and odours and operating cost with potential • Temporary recreational noise at the SCRF for the and/or facilities • Temporary presence of long-term • Alteration to disruption to archaeological change in roadways traffic resources) surface water • Disruption to • Temporary or • Displacement quality and/or utilities permanent or disruption quantity • Temporary or alteration to of built • Temporary or permanent existing views heritage permanent property • Potential features loss of easements effects to • Removal of aquatic human health cultural features or landscape categorical units 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 • Temporary and/or permanent change in air quality

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 36

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. Further details on the finalization of preliminary criteria and indicators are provided in Section 9.2.3 and Section 10 of the Proposed ToR. 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. In addition, impact management measures other than those currently utilized at the existing SCRF will be developed and assessed as part of the EA.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 37

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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 38

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 course11F .

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:

1. Predicted net negative effects are not more than expected

2. Unanticipated negative effects are addressed

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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 39

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. Table 9.1 – Review Agencies Involved in the Preparation of the Proposed Terms of Reference

Review Agency Rationale for the Agency’s Involvement Federal and Provincial Agencies Environment and Their mandate includes preserving and Climate Change enhancing the quality of the natural Canada environment including water, air, soil, flora, and fauna which may be affected by the proposed undertaking. Transport Their mandate includes protecting people Canada from accidents and exposure to dangerous goods and the environment from pollution that can result from such events which may be affected by the proposed undertaking as it relates to truck traffic. Ministry of Their mandate includes strengthening Indigenous relationships with Indigenous communities. Relations and Since Indigenous communities are being Reconciliation directly notified as part of the ToR process,

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 40

Review Agency Rationale for the Agency’s Involvement (formerly Ministry the Ministry was consulted as part of the of Aboriginal ToR process so their assistance could be Affairs) offered. Ministry of Their mandate includes supporting Ontario’s Agriculture, Food agri-food sector, enforcing and improving and Rural Affairs food safety and strengthening Ontario’s rural (OMAFRA) communities. Since the preliminary study area includes a rural environment that may be affected by the proposed undertaking, OMAFRA was consulted as part of the ToR process. Ministry of Their mandate includes helping to grow a Economic strong, innovative economy that provides Development and jobs and prosperity for all Ontarians, which Growth may be affected by the proposed undertaking. Ministry of the Their mandate includes protecting, restoring Environment and and enhancing the environment to ensure Climate Change public health and environmental quality, (MOECC) which may be affected by the proposed undertaking, In addition, MOECC is responsible for administrating the Environmental Assessment Act, which the proposed undertaking is subject to. Ministry of Health Since part of the Ministry’s mandate is to and Long Term help people stay healthy, they were Care consulted to ensure that the health of Ontarians was duly considered as part of the ToR process. Ministry of Their mandate includes working with Municipal Affairs municipalities to consider how decisions and Housing impact communities. They were consulted because the proposed undertaking has the potential to affect the upper Stoney Creek community within the City of Hamilton Ontario Growth They coordinate Places to Grow, which is Secretariat initiative to plan for growth in Ontario in a way that supports economic prosperity and achieves a high quality of life. They were consulted because the approved service area for the SCRF is the Province of Ontario. While initially contacted, they requested to be removed from the contact list.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 41

Review Agency Rationale for the Agency’s Involvement Ministry of Natural Their mandate is to oversee the province’s Resources and natural resources and work to safeguard Forestry Ontario’s provincial parks, forests, fisheries, wildlife, mineral aggregates, Crown lands and waters, which may be affected by the proposed undertaking. Ministry of Their mandate includes the conservation of Tourism, Culture archaeological resources and promotion of and Sport heritage conservation, which may be affected by the proposed undertaking. Ministry of Their mandate includes overseeing the Transportation provincial transit and transportation system, which may be affected by the proposed undertaking as it relates to truck traffic. Niagara Their mandate includes the maintenance of Escarpment the Niagara Escarpment and land in its Commission vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment. They were consulted because of the proximity of proposed undertaking to the Niagara Escarpment. Ontario Provincial They were consulted as part of the ToR Police process to determine if the proposed undertaking affects provincial policing activities within their jurisdiction. Municipal and Regional Agencies City of Hamilton, Since the proposed undertaking is situated including the within the City of Hamilton municipal following boundaries, they were consulted as part of departments: the ToR process to ensure their various planning, interests were duly considered. economic development, water, public health, transportation, and city manager Hamilton They manage the natural environment with Conservation the City of Hamilton and Province of Ontario Authority protecting water sources, guarding against flooding and erosion, managing conservation and recreational lands, and promoting environmental stewardship and education. Since the proposed undertaking is situated

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 42

Review Agency Rationale for the Agency’s Involvement within their watershed, they were consulted as part of the ToR process to ensure their various interests were duly considered. Hamilton Since the proposed undertaking is situated Wentworth within the school district boundaries of the Catholic District HWCDSB, they were consulted as part of School Board the ToR process to ensure their interests (HWCDSB) were duly considered. Hamilton Since the proposed undertaking is situated Wentworth within the school district boundaries of the District School HWDSB, they were consulted as part of the Board (HWDSB) ToR process to ensure their interests were duly considered. Review Agency Rationale for the Agency’s Involvement Federal and Provincial Agencies Environment and Their mandate includes preserving and Climate Change enhancing the quality of the natural Canada environment including water, air, soil, flora, and fauna which may be affected by the proposed undertaking. Transport Their mandate includes protecting people Canada from accidents and exposure to dangerous goods and the environment from pollution that can result from such events which may be affected by the proposed undertaking as it relates to truck traffic.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 43

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 Six Nations of the Grand River Métis Nation of Ontario Clear 13 First Nation First Nation Waters Métis Council12F Métis Nation of Ontario Haudenosaunee Development Haudenosaunee Confederacy Institute (HDI). Chiefs Council

The preceding Aboriginal Communities were identified for consultation as part of the ToR process following a review of the following and emails with MOECC:

• Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS)

• Previous Environmental Assessments conducted by Terrapure • Previous Environmental Assessments carried out in the vicinity of the SCRF

In addition to this review, on June 21, 2016, MOECC identified that Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, Six Nations of the Grand River, and Haudensaunee Confederacy Council as potentially interested the project/activity.

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.

9.1.2 Consultation Activities Carried Out with Review Agencies, Aboriginal Communities and the Public

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

13 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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 44

Notifications • 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.

• 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.

• Notification of Amended Terms of Reference - As a result of comments received from the MOECC and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Terrapure proposed amendments to the Proposed Terms of Reference during the Terms of Reference review period. In accordance with Section 7.2 of the MOECC’s “Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario,” Terrapure is responsible for consulting with persons who are affected by proposed amendments to the Terms of Reference. As a result, the MOECC and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport were consulted on these amendments. Specifically, the draft Amended Terms of Reference was provided to the MOECC and to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport for review. The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport responded that they were satisfied with the proposed amendments.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 45

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

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 46

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.

9.1.3 Results of Consulting with Review Agencies, Aboriginal Communities and the Public

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.

Review Agencies

Eleven of the nineteen review agencies contacted during preparation of the ToR responded with comments despite follow up efforts (e.g., emails, telephone calls, etc.). Table 9.2 briefly summarizes the comments received including any issues raised by those agencies who responded during preparation of the ToR. Table 9.2 – Summary of Comments Received from Review Agencies

Review Agency Summary of Comments Received Federal and Provincial Agencies

Transport Canada No need for involvement unless project interacts with federal property and requires approval/authorization under any Acts administered by Transport Canada.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Include current and planned agricultural uses Food and Rural Affairs when describing the environment potentially affected and as a component that will be considered during the assessment of effects as part of the SCRF EA.

Ministry of the Environment and Provided the Ministry’s expectations on the Climate Change content of the ToR, consultation on the ToR, distribution of the ToR, and ToR submission requirements and timelines.

Provided comments on the draft and proposed ToR, which were revised to address their comments.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 47

Review Agency Summary of Comments Received Provided species at risk (SAR) Ministry of Natural Resources and records for the broader area and Forestry requested that related survey work be carried out during the SCRF EA.

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Screen for cultural heritage impacts and Sport undertake any heritage studies found to be necessary during the SCRF EA.

Provided comments on the draft and proposed ToR, which were revised to address their comments. No comments on the draft ToR. Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure and Niagara Escarpment Commission Remove from project contact list. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing

Environment Canada, Ministry of No comments were received in response to Transportation, Ontario Provincial information provided despite repeated follow up Police efforts to obtain comments. Regional and Municipal Agencies City of Hamilton Identified the following concerns/issues needing to be addressed as part of the SCRF EA:

• Reduced buffering/setbacks and impacts to approved residential building lots

• Traffic

• Drainage and servicing • Odours

• Noise

• GHG emissions • Information on the total amount of waste/fill

• Visual

• Range of alternatives

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 48

Review Agency Summary of Comments Received Hamilton Wentworth District School Board Planning on building an elementary school northwest of the Green Mountain Road West and First Road West (7 to 9 years away) that needs to be taken into account as part of the SCRF EA including such issues as air quality, noise, odour, groundwater quality/flow, traffic, visual impacts, site design, and testing, monitoring, and due diligence. No comments on the draft ToR. Hamilton Conservation Authority and Hamilton Wentworth Catholic District School Board

Aboriginal Communities

Five of the six Aboriginal communities contacted during preparation of the ToR responded. None of the responses received identified any issues or concerns (Table 9.3). Table 9.3 – Summary of Comments Received from Aboriginal Communities

Aboriginal Community Summary of Comments Received

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Do not have a high level of concern regarding the Nation proposed project at this time; and therefore, approves the continuation of the project.

Haudenosaunee Development Clarification on the project description required. Institute

Six Nations of the Grand River No comments were received in response to information provided despite repeated follow up efforts to obtain comments including correspondence, emails, and telephone calls – voice mails (June 7 and 30, November 7, 8, and 9, and December 22, 2016 and January 4, 6, 18, and 26, 2017)

Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Will notify the Haudenosaunee Development Council Institute of the project and provided further clarification on whom to issue project correspondence to.

Métis Nation of Ontario Will pass on the project information to the Clear Waters Metis Council. No specific comments on the project at this time.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 49

Aboriginal Community Summary of Comments Received

Métis Nation of Ontario Clear Waters Send project related information directly to the Métis Nation of Ontario, who will inform us as appropriate. No specific comments on the project at this time.

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”.

9.1.4 Comments Received on the Proposed Terms of Reference

In addition to comments being received during preparation of the Terms of Reference, comments were also received from involved review agencies and members of the public on the Proposed Terms of Reference during the Terms of Reference review period. Comments were received through letters and emails addressed to the MOECC and to Terrapure. Comments sent to the MOECC were forwarded to Terrapure for consideration. The comments received and issues raised during of the Terms of Reference 30-day review period and how they have been considered by

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 50

Terrapure are summarized in two separate tables in the RoC and summarized in the following subsections. In addition, Terrapure elected to take a “time-out” in the ToR review process to address comments received during the 30-day review period and amend the ToR. The MOECC provided additional comments to Terrapure during the ToR amendment period and are summarized in the RoC and the following subsections as well.

Review Agencies

Out of the 19 review agencies that were provided the Proposed Terms of Reference, seven agencies responded. Five of those agencies provided comments on the Proposed Terms of Reference. Table 9.4 briefly summarizes the comments received including any issues raised by those agencies who provided comments on the Proposed Terms of Reference. Table 9.4 – Summary of Comments Received from Review Agencies

Review Agency Summary of Comments Received Federal and Provincial Agencies Hamilton-Wentworth Noted that Terrapure revised its Terms of Reference to address District School Board comments from agencies, and that these revisions broadened the (HWDSB) scope of the Terms of Reference in a constructive way. HWDSB noted that they have no issue with how its mandated responsibilities, interests or jurisdiction has been identified in this document and they look forward to being a participant in the Environmental Assessment Ministry of Natural The work proposed in the Terms of Reference meets Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Resources and Forestry’s jurisdictional mandate and the Ministry’s interests have been adequately identified for confirmation during the Environmental Assessment process. Ministry of Tourism, Requested clarification that the revisions to the range of Alternative Culture and Sport Methods does not increase the potential for cultural heritage impacts. Terrapure responded that we do not anticipate that the proposed Alternative Methods would disturb lands with archaeological potential, however we have included the criteria and indicators to ensure the broad definition of the environment under the EA Act is considered in the Environmental Assessment.

Requested that the potential environmental effect in Table 6.1 of the Proposed Terms of Reference “Removal of cultural landscape units” be revised to “Disturbance to cultural heritage landscapes”. The Terms of Reference was amended to include this revision. Ontario Ministry of Matters related to the Ministry’s jurisdictional mandate and interests as Agriculture, Food and they relate to the proposal have been adequately identified. It is Rural Affairs expected that the Ministry’s jurisdictional mandate and interests would be sufficiently addressed if an Environmental Assessment was completed as proposed.

Requested clarification that agriculturally-related businesses will be evaluated as “businesses” referenced in Appendices C and D. Terrapure confirmed that agriculturally-related businesses will be evaluated as “businesses”.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 51

Review Agency Summary of Comments Received Ministry of the The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Environment and Climate provided comments in two letters (dated March 10, 2017 and April 18, Change 2017) related to: • Clarification regarding existing groundwater protection and leachate collection; • Clarification regarding existing compliance record; • Request to clarify in the Terms of Reference the diversion and recovery systems for waste received at the SCRF; • Request to clarify in the Terms of Reference that a description of the purpose of the undertaking will be included in the EA; • Request to clarify references to MOECC Codes of Practice in the Terms of Reference; • Request to include a “Do Nothing” Alternative Method; • Request to include an assessment of the existing leachate collection and treatment system in the EA; • Clarification on current exemption for the requirement to have a landfill gas collection system; • Request to clarify the EA process in the Terms of Reference, including the range of Alternative Methods, and confirmation of the study area; consideration of impact management measures; finalization of preliminary criteria and indicators; • Request for further information with respect to source water protection; • Request to move the description of the atmospheric conditions to the Natural Environment; • Clarification on need for Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment; • Request for inclusion of effects to human health; • Request for information on the comments raised during the Terms of Reference be included in the Terms of Reference; • Request for a more detailed issue resolution strategy; • Comments on the following workplans: surface water, air quality, geology and hydrogeology, land use/social impacts; noise; and • Clarification on the proposed service area;

As a result of the comments received on March 10, 2017, Terrapure agreed to amend the Proposed Terms of Reference. Terrapure provided a draft Amended Terms of Reference to the MOECC and draft responses to their comments on March 27, 2017. The MOECC indicated on April 18, 2017 that they had comments on the draft Amended Terms of Reference and requested a conference call to discuss their comments. A conference call was held on April 28, 2017 to review the comments on the draft responses by Terrapure. Terrapure amended the Proposed ToR in order to address all comments made by the MOECC.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 52

Review Agency Summary of Comments Received Hamilton Conservation No objection to the implementation of the project as outlined in the Authority Terms of Reference. Provided reference information and identified sources to be considered as part of the investigative studies to be completed during the Terms of Reference. City of Hamilton Provided comments in two letters (dated March 10, 2017 and April 7, 2017) related to: • Impacts on approved and planned residential development to the north of the SCRF • Request for a Landfill Impact Assessment to carried as part of the EA; • •Request for a comprehensive visual impact assessment during the EA;; • Air quality and noise impacts; • Request for an assessment of potential changes in property value and assessment value in the EA; • Drainage, servicing impacts, and future urbanization of roads adjacent to the SCRF; • Transportation and traffic effects expected to be addressed during the EA; • Source water protection to be addressed during the EA; • Request for clarification on the total amount of residual waste and fill; • Request for clarification on the EA process and pre-determination of an Alternative To the Undertaking; and • Request to review funding agreement for the Heritage Green Community Trust and City of Hamilton Royalty Program; • Desire for Terrapure to maintain height of existing facility; and • Request for an expanded description of the studies and assessments to be undertaken during the EA.

Terrapure provided a response to these comments on March 31, 2017 and April 13, 2017.

City of Hamilton Staff provided one set of their comments (March 10, 2017) in a report to City of Hamilton Planning Committee on April 18, 2017 and subsequently to City of Hamilton Council on April 26, 2017. The staff report did not include the April 7, 2017 comments or either of Terrapure’s response letters dated March 31, 2017 and April 13, 2017 due to the timing of when staff reports are to be submitted to the Clerk’s office. Nevertheless, Terrapure worked with the City to address the City’s comments in parallel to the Staff report for Committee and Council.

As requested by staff, Council endorsed the comments provided to the MOECC on March 10, 2017 and directed staff to provide the staff report to the MOECC to be considered as part of the EA. In addition, Council

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 53

Review Agency Summary of Comments Received passed a motion noting that the “City of Hamilton opposes the application made by Terrapure Environmental to increase the capacity of the landfill.” While the Proposed Terms of Reference does not constitute an “application to increase the capacity of the landfill”, Terrapure will consider these comments during the EA and continue to consult with the City during the EA. It should be noted that Terrapure received confirmation on April 28, 2017 that the City was satisfied that the responses provided have adequately addressed the City’s concerns.

Public

The following is a summary of the topics that were raised by members of public in the comments received from the public during the 30-day Terms of Reference review period: • 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. • General site operations – types of materials received; analytical testing of incoming residual materials; noise / odour / dust monitoring programs.

• Surrounding land uses (e.g. new residential subdivision planned on Green Mountain Rd. W; impacts on property values).

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

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:

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 54

• 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.)

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 55

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.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 56

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, by the time of formally submitting the SCRF EA, Terrapure will refer the matter to MOECC. With this general framework in mind, a more detailed issue resolution strategy will be developed as part of the SCRF EA.

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

Purpose of the Undertaking The purpose statement will be reviewed and finalized as part of preparing the SCRF EA once An initial purpose of the undertaking (purpose a specific undertaking is selected from the statement) is provided in the ToR (Section 3.1): Alternative Methods that are to be considered. • To increase the approved capacity of the SCRF by 3,680,000 m3 so that Terrapure can continue to receive post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated predominantly within the Hamilton & Greater Toronto Area (H>A).

Description of and rationale for the undertaking. A detailed description of and the rationale for the proposed undertaking will be finalized as A preliminary description of the proposed part of preparing the SCRF EA once a specific undertaking is provided in the ToR (Section 4): undertaking is selected from the Alternative • An expansion of the existing SCRF so as to Methods that are to be considered. increase its approved capacity by 3,680,000 m3 to receive additional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 57

Aspect/Circumstance Process for Confirming/Finalizing

predominantly within the H>A.

Description of and Rationale for the Alternative The preliminary descriptions of each of the Methods Alternative Methods will be expanded upon as part of preparing the SCRF EA so that a A preliminary description of each of the detailed description of each is provided for prior Alternative Methods and their rationale is to their assessment and comparative provided in the ToR (Section 5.1 and evaluation. Similarly, the rationale for each of Section 5.2). the Alternative Methods will be expanded upon as part of preparing the SCRF EA. The finalization of the Alternative Methods and their rationale will occur after presenting additional details and consulting on them with the Aboriginal Communities, Agencies and the public.

Preliminary Study Area The preliminary study area will be finalized during preparation of the SCRF EA when the A preliminary study area for the SCRF EA that Alternative Methods have been confirmed and extends 1500m or 1.5km from the four roads the potential environmental effects are better that border the existing SCRF has been known. The EA process will allow for the identified in the ToR (Section 6.1). acquisition of more detailed information beyond the preliminary information currently provided in Section 6 of the ToR, which will assist in confirming or refining the Preliminary Study Area.

Preliminary Description of the Environment A more detailed description of the environment will be provided during preparation of the A brief description of the environment within the SCRF EA reflecting the final study area using preliminary study area addressing all available existing information sources and components of the EA Act definition of the investigative studies. The detailed description environment (i.e., natural, built, social, will be finalized after presenting and consulting economic, and cultural) has been provided in on them with Aboriginal Communities, Agencies the ToR (Section 6.2). and the public.

Investigative Studies/ Work Plans The proposed work plans will be finalized as part of the SCRF EA after presenting and A description of the investigative studies and consulting on them with consulting on them with proposed work plans has been provided in the Aboriginal Communities, Agencies and the ToR (Section 6.2.6.2 and Appendix D). public.

Potential Effects The specific potential environmental effects will be determined and finalized during the A preliminary list of the types of potential preparation of the SCRF EA, specifically after environmental effects that will be assessed

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 58

Aspect/Circumstance Process for Confirming/Finalizing

during preparation of the SCRF EA has been the review of secondary sources, completion of included in the ToR (Section 6.2.6.3). investigative studies and evaluation of alternative methods.

Evaluation Criteria The preliminary evaluation criteria and indicators will be finalized prior to application A preliminary list of evaluation criteria and during preparation of the SCRF EA after indicators that will be finalized and utilized presenting and consulting on them with during preparation of the SCRF EA has been consulting on them with Aboriginal provided in the ToR (Appendix C and D). Communities, Agencies and the public.

Consultation As part of the SCRF EA, the consultation events will include those listed as part of the ToR, but A preliminary list of consultation activities may include additional events as required. proposed to be carried out during the preparation of the SCRF EA are provided in the ToR (Section 9.2):

• Notifications

• Meetings and presentations

• Public Open Houses

• Project-specific Website and Social Media

Other Approvals Required The actual approvals required for the preferred undertaking will be identified during preparation A preliminary list of additional approvals that of the SCRF EA and will be finalized and may be needed to implement the proposed presented in the Final EA Report. undertaking are identified in the ToR (Section 11).

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.

GHD | Terrapure Environmental | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | 59

Appendix A

Glossary of Terms

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | A-i

Glossary of Terms

Acronym Definition AANDC Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada C of A Certificate of Approval C&D Construction and Demolition CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 D&O Design & Operations DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA Environmental Assessment EA Act Ontario Environmental Assessment Act EC Environment Canada ECA Environmental Compliance Approval EPA Environmental Protection Act EPR Extended Producer Responsibility GHG Greenhouse Gases GRT Government Review Team HC Health Canada IC&I Industrial Commercial and Institutional ISWM Interim Stormwater Management MMAH Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing MNRF Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry MOECC Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change MTCS Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport MTO Ontario Ministry of Transportation OH Open House OMAFRA Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs CLC Citizen Liaison Committee PPS Provincial Policy Statement PSW Provincially Significant Wetland SAR Species at Risk TC Transport Canada ToR Terms of Reference

Unit Definition ha hectare km kilometre L litre m metre m3 cubic metres

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | A-1

Term Definition Advantage A relative term used to indicate that a particular condition is deemed to offer a benefit when compared to another condition Alternative Methods of Different ways of doing the same activity. Carrying out the Undertaking (Interchangeable with Alternative Methods) Approval Permission granted by an authorized individual or organization for an undertaking to proceed. This may be in the form of program approval, certificate of approval or provisional certificate of approval Built Environment The human-made surroundings that provide the setting for human activity. Category A broader category, group or element of the environment used for classifying a given set of criteria. Certificate of Approval A licence or permit issued by the Ministry of the Environment Climate Change for the operation of a waste management site/facility (now referred to as an Environmental Compliance Approval) Commitments Represents a pledge from a proponent about a certain course of action, that is, "I will do this, at this time, in this way." Proponents document obligations and responsibilities, which they agree to follow, in environmental assessment documentation. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, with the agreement of Cabinet, has the authority to give approval to proceed with the undertaking. The commitments within the document are often made legally binding as a condition of approval Compliance Monitoring An assessment of whether an undertaking has been constructed, implemented, and/or operated in accordance with the commitments made in the environmental assessment and the conditions of the Environmental Assessment Act approval Construction and Solid waste produced in the course of residential, commercial, demolition (C&D) waste industrial or institutional building construction, demolition or renovation (e.g., lumber, brick, concrete, plaster, glass, stone, drywall, etc.) Cover material Material used to cover the waste in the disposal cells during or following landfilling operations. May be daily, intermediate or final Criteria/ Criterion A set of principles or standards used to compare and judge alternatives. (plural = "criteria", singular = "criterion") Cultural Environment The ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation, including customs, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions, and values Design and operations A document required for obtaining a Certificate of Approval, which (D&O) plan describes in detail the function, elements or features of the landfill site/facility, and how a landfill site/facility would function including its monitoring and control/management systems Design capacity (Total The maximum total volume of air space available for disposal of Disposal Volume) waste at a landfill site for a particular design (typically in m3); includes both waste and daily cover materials, but excludes the final cover Disadvantage A relative term used to indicate that a particular condition is deemed to be unfavourable or of an inferior condition when compared with another condition Easement A legally recognized property right held by a person or a group to make use of land for a limited purpose, such as construction

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | A-2

Term Definition Economic Environment The economic conditions that influence the life of humans or a community, including factors such as employment, income, and wealth Environmental Compliance Technical approval of the Facility issued by MOECC under Sections 9 Approval (ECA) and 27 of the Environmental Protection Act and Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act) Environment As defined by the Environmental Assessment Act, environment means: (a) air, land or water, (b) plant and animal life, including human life, (c) the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community, (d) any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans, (e) any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from human activities, or (f) any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them (ecosystem approach) Environmental A systematic planning process that is conducted in accordance with Assessment applicable laws or regulations aimed at assessing the effects of a proposed undertaking on the environment Evaluation criteria Evaluation criteria are considerations or factors taken into account in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives being considered.

For the purposes of this Terms of Reference, an Environmental Assessment refers to the process and related documentation, including the submission of a Terms of Reference and final Environmental Assessment Report for approval by the Minister of the Environment, in accordance with the requirements of Part II of the EA Act Environmental Legislation that defines a decision-making process used to promote Assessment Act (EA Act) good environmental planning by assessing the potential effects of certain activities on the environment. The purpose of the EA Act is the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment Environmental Effect The effect that a proposed undertaking or its alternatives has or could potentially have on the environment, either positive or negative, direct or indirect, short- or long-term Evaluation A formal process for comparatively assessing the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives (see Evaluation Methodology) Evaluation Methodology A formal process for comparatively assessing the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives and establishing an order of preference among alternatives Hazardous waste Any residual hazardous materials which by their nature are potentially hazardous to human health and/or the environment, as well as any materials, wastes or objects assimilated to a hazardous material. Hazardous waste is defined by Ontario Regulation 347 and may be explosive, gaseous, flammable, toxic, radioactive, corrosive, combustive or leachable Impact Assessment The process of studying and identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | A-3

Term Definition Indicator Indicators are specific characteristics of the evaluation criteria that can be measured or determined in some way, as opposed to the actual criteria, which are fairly general Industrial, commercial and Wastes originating from the industrial, commercial and institutional institutional (IC&I) wastes sectors Landfill gas The gases produced from the wastes disposed in a landfill; the main constituents are typically carbon dioxide and methane, with small amounts of other organic and odour-causing compounds Landfill site An approved engineered site/facility used for the final disposal of waste Mitigation Action(s) that remove or alleviate to some degree the potential negative effects associated with an activity. Monitoring A systematic method for collecting information using standard observations according to a schedule and over a sustained period of time. Natural Environment A term that encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof Net Effects Positive or negative environmental effects of a project and related activities that will remain after mitigation and impact management measures have been applied. Net Effects Analysis The process of determining and documenting the net effects associated with each indicator for each alternative being considered Non-hazardous waste Non-hazardous wastes includes all solid waste that does not meet the definition of hazardous waste and includes designated wastes such as asbestos waste Ontario Environmental Legislation that defines a decision making process used to promote Assessment Act good environmental planning by assessing the potential effects of certain activities on the environment. The purpose of the Ontario EA Act is the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment. Potential Effect An effect that is deemed possible to result from an activity. Preferred Alternative The alternative selected as the undertaking for which approval will be sought, based on an approach for identifying a preferred alternative, namely: a) Identify a recommended Alternative Method b) Consult review agencies and the public on the recommended alternative c) Confirm or select the preferred alternative based on the comments received Proponent A person who: (a) carries out or proposes to carry out an undertaking, or (b) is the owner or person having charge, management or control of an undertaking Service life The period of time during which the components of a properly designed and maintained engineered facility will function and perform as designed Public Means the general public, individual members of the public who may be affected by or have an interest in a project and special interest groups Ranking To arrange (alternatives) according to their rank from first to last Rationale Explanation of the logical reasons or principles employed in consciously arriving at a decision or estimate

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | A-4

Term Definition Reasoned Argument/ A comparative evaluation method based on net effects / advantages Trade-off Method and disadvantages and explained in narrative terms (rationale). The process of examining the net effects and key trade-offs of each alternative in order to provide a clear rationale for the preferred alternative Recommended Alternative An Alternative Method selected as first place based on the results of a Method comparative evaluation process Record of Consultation Describes the consultation activities undertaken during the preparation of the EA Terms of Reference Review Agencies Means government agencies, ministries, or public authorities or bodies whose mandates require them to have jurisdiction over matters affected or potentially affected by projects. Site life The period of time during which the landfill can continue to accept wastes Social Environment Represents the external conditions under which people engage in social activity within their community Terms of Reference (ToR) The first step in an application for approval to proceed with a project or undertaking under the Environmental Assessment Act is the submission of a Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Environmental Assessment (EA). Public and agency consultation is required on the preparation and submission of the ToR to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Approval is required by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. If approved, the ToR provides a framework / work plan for the EA Trade-offs A balancing of attributes, all of which are not attainable at the same time. Giving up of one thing in return for another

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | A-5

Appendix B

ECA No. A181008

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | B-i

Ministry Ministere AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL of the de WASTE DISPOSAL SITE Environment !'Environnement NUMBER A 181008 Notice No. 11 Issue Date: November 28, 2005 O®ntario

PSC Industrial Services Canada Inc. 519 Parkdale Avenue North Hamilton, Ontario L8H5Y6

Site Location: Taro Landfill 65 Green Mountain Road Hamilton City, L8J 1X5

You are hereby notified that I have amended Provisional Certificate ofA pproval No. A181008 issued . on September 6, 1996 for the disposal of solid, non-hazardous commercial, institutional and industrial waste, "" · s follows:

Condition 21 of the existing Certificate of Approval is hereby revoked and replaced by the following new Condition: -

Condition 21. The maximum volume of waste and cover material, excluding final cover, which may be disposed of at the Taro East Landfill Site is 6,320,000 m3•

The reason for this amendment to the Certificate of Approval is as follows: The maximum approved volumetric capacity of the landfill is not consistent with the maximum tonnage approved for the site due to inaccurate estimates of the density of the waste made during the study of the landfill.

all in accordance with the application for approval dated November 23, 2005, and supporting information and documentation prepared by PSC Industrial Services Canada Inc.

This Notice shall constitute part of the approval issued under Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A181008 dated September 6, 1996, as amended.

In accordance with Section 139 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter E-19, as amended, you may by written notice served upon me andthe Environmental Review Tribunal within 15 days after receipt of this Notice, require a· hearing by the Tribunal. Section 142 of the Environmental Protection Act, rovides that the Notice requiring the hearing shall state:

Page 1 - Nm,IBER A 181008

Appendix C

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

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | C-i

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

The preliminary evaluation criteria and indicators for assessing the Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking as part of the Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) Environmental Assessment (EA) include, but may not be limited to, those set out in Table C-1. The preliminary evaluation criteria and indicators are grouped according to the following components based on the definition of the environment provided in the EA Act: Natural, Built, Social, Economic, and Cultural. In addition, the potential data sources for the criteria and indicators are provided in Table C-1. Evaluation criteria and indicators for Design and Operations has also been included in Table C-1.

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

Table C-1: Preliminary Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Potential Data Sources

Environmental Evaluation Indicators Potential Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Predicted effects to groundwater • Hydrogeological and geotechnical studies groundwater quality at property boundaries and • Water well records quality off-site • Determination of water well users in the area • Predicted effects to Predicted effects • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF to Source Water Protection Area • Proposed leachate control concept designs • Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals • Leachate generation assessment •

Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) Geology & • Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report Hydrogeology • MOECC Source Water Protection Plan (Halton- Hamilton)

NATURAL Effect on • Predicted effects to groundwater flow • Hydrogeological and geotechnical studies groundwater flow at property boundaries and off-site • Water well records • Determination of water well users in the area • Annual Monitoring Report for SCRF • Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report • MOECC Source Water Protection Plan (Halton- Hamilton) Surface Water Effect on surface • Predicted effects on surface water • Topographic maps Resources water quality quality on-site and off-site

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | C-1

Environmental Evaluation Indicators Potential Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on surface • Predicted change in drainage areas • Surface Water Existing Conditions Report water quantity • Predicted occurrence and degree of • Air photos off-site effects • Facility layout, drainage maps and figures • Proposed on-site stormwater management concept designs for vertical expansion alternatives • Existing leachate management system • Annual Monitoring Report for SCRF • Interviews and discussions with staff, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), Conservation Authorities, and Environment Canada • Published water quality and flow information from MOECC, Environment Canada and conservation authorities • Site reconnaissance • PWQMN • Surface Water Existing Conditions Report • Annual Reports and previously submitted stormwater reports for previously prepared EA and CofA’s Effect on terrestrial • Predicted impact on vegetation • Previous site surveys ecosystems communities • Site investigations • Predicted impact on wildlife habitat • MNRF databases • Predicted impact on vegetation and • City of Hamilton Official Plan wildlife including rare, threatened or • Hamilton Conservation Authority databases Terrestrial & endangered species • Natural Environment Existing Conditions Aquatic Effect on aquatic • Predicted impact on aquatic habitat • Previous site surveys Environment ecosystems • Predicted impact on aquatic biota • Site investigations • Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) databases • City of Hamilton Official Plan • Hamilton Conservation Authority databases • Natural Environment Existing Conditions

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | C-2

Environmental Evaluation Indicators Potential Data Sources Component Criteria Effect of air quality • Predicted off-site point of impingement • Environment Canada or MOECC hourly meteorological on off-site concentrations (µg/m3) of indicator data and climate normals receptors compounds • Hamilton Air Monitoring Network (HAMN) data • Number of off-site receptors potentially • National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) Ambient Air affected (residential properties, public Monitoring Station 60513 (Hamilton Mountain) facilities, businesses, and institutions) • Site ambient air monitoring, continuous emissions monitoring data • Applicable MOECC guidelines and technical standards (i.e., O. Reg.419/05 Schedule 2, Schedule 3 and Schedule 6 Standards) Atmospheric • Aerial photographic mapping and field reconnaissance Environment • Off-Site receptors confirmed on recent mapping • Emissions Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) reports • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF • Available background ambient air data • Waste materials and leachate characterization and sampling data • Proposed facility characteristics • Landfill design and operation data and associated topography • Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | C-3

Environmental Evaluation Indicators Potential Data Sources Component Criteria Effect of odours on • Predicted off-Site odour concentrations • Published odour studies for similar source types off-site receptors (µg /m3 and odour units) • Site specific odour source data and/or ambient odour • Number of off-Site receptors monitoring data potentially affected (residential • Environment Canada or MOECC hourly meteorological properties, public facilities, businesses data and climate normals and institutions) • Applicable MOECC guidelines and technical standards (i.e., O. Reg. 419/05 Schedule 2, Schedule 3 and Schedule 6 Standards) • Site odour complaints history • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF • Aerial photographic mapping and field reconnaissance • Off-site receptors confirmed on recent mapping • Odour assessment reports • Waste materials and leachate characterization and sampling data • Proposed facility characteristics • Landfill design and operation data and associated topography • Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report Effect of noise on • Predicted off-Site noise level • Site-specific equipment noise measurements off-site receptors • Number of off-Site receptors • Manufacturer provided noise specifications potentially affected (residential • Applicable MOECC guidelines and technical standards properties, public facilities, businesses, (Noise guidelines for landfill sites, Oct, 1998; NPC-300, and institutions). August, 2013; NPC-233). • Aerial photographic mapping and field reconnaissance to confirm off-Site receptors • Land Use Zoning Plans • Acoustic Assessment Reports • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF • Proposed facility operational characteristics and scenarios • Landfill design and operation data and associated topography • Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | C-4

Environmental Evaluation Indicators Potential Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on existing • Current land use • Aerial photographic mapping and field investigations

land uses • Land Use Existing Conditions Report Effect on views of • Predicted changes in views of the • Alternative methods Land Use the facility facility from the surrounding area • Site grading plans BUILT • Aerial mapping and field investigation • Land Use Existing Conditions Report Effect on human • Predicted impacts to air quality and • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF health their potential effects on human health • Community Health Assessment Review’s prepared on • Predicted effects of leachate quality an annual basis (inorganic and organic chemicals) on • Community Health Assessment Study (1996) human health • Potential data sources associated with the • Predicted impacts to groundwater Environmental Components “Geology and

Human Health quality and their potential effects on Hydrogeology”, “Surface Water” and “Atmospheric human health Environment” within Table C-1 • Predicted impacts to surface water quality and their potential effects on SOCIAL human health • Predicted impacts to soil and their potential effects on human health Effect on traffic • Potential for traffic collisions • Previous traffic studies • Level of Service at intersections • City of Hamilton data Transportation around the SCRF • Traffic Existing Conditions Report

Economic Effect on • Number, extent, and type of • City of Hamilton Official Plan approved/planned approved/planned land uses affected • City of Hamilton Zoning By-law land uses • City of Hamilton development data and plans • Economic Existing Conditions Report ECONOMIC

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | C-5

Environmental Evaluation Indicators Potential Data Sources Component Criteria Economic benefit • Employment at site (number and • Alternative methods to the City of duration) • Total volume of post-diversion solid, non-hazardous Hamilton and local residual material calculated to be received community • Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (Attachment A to Supporting Document #1 of the ToR) • Economic Existing Conditions Report

Effect on known or • Number and type of potentially • Published data sources (e.g., City of Hamilton) potential significant, known archaeological sites • Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport Screening significant affected. archaeological • Area (ha) of archaeological potential resources (i.e., lands with potential for the Archaeology presence of significant archaeological and Built resources) affected. Heritage Effect on built • Number and type of built heritage • Published data sources (e.g., City of Hamilton)

CULTURAL heritage resources resources and cultural heritage • Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Sport Screening and cultural landscapes displaced or disrupted heritage landscapes

Potential to • Ability of Alternative Methods to • Existing Design and Operations Report provide service for provide disposal capacity for post- • Conceptual Designs disposal diversion solid, non-hazardous

industrial residual material

Design & Operations Cost of facility • Approximate relative cost of • Existing Design and Operations Report Alternative Methods • Conceptual Designs TECHNICAL • Cost estimates

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | C-6

Appendix D

Proposed Work Plans

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-i

1. Introduction

There are a number of work plans proposed as part of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment (SCRF EA) Terms of Reference (ToR). The proposed Work Plans 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

• Design and Operations

The preceding 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.

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-1

Appendix D-1

Geology & Hydrogeology Work Plan

The Geology and Hydrogeology Work Plan addresses both groundwater quality and groundwater flow. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking: • Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 1-1 • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Geology & Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:

Conduct predictive modelling of contaminating lifespan as per Ontario Regulation 232/98 for each alternative method.

Based on the Alternative Methods and the results of predictive modelling, identify the potential effects of each alternative on the geological and hydrogeological environment.

Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the geological and hydrogeological component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from a geological and hydrogeological perspective

• Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and groundwater monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in a Geology and Hydrogeology Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA. Further, Terrapure will develop a 3D conceptual model for the preferred alternative method.

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-2

Table 1-1 – Preliminary Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources

Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Predicted effects to • Hydrogeological and geotechnical groundwater groundwater quality at studies quality property boundaries and • Water well records off-site • Determination of water well users in • Predicted effects to the area Source Water Protection • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF Area • Proposed leachate control concept designs • Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals • Leachate generation assessment • Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) Geology & • Hydrogeology Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report • Source Water Protection Plan (Hamilton) Effect on • Predicted effects to • Hydrogeological and geotechnical groundwater groundwater flow at studies flow property boundaries and • Water well records off-site • Determination of water well users in • Predicted effects to the area Source Water Protection • Annual Monitoring Report for SCRF Area • Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report • Source Water Protection Plan (Hamilton)

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-3

Appendix D-2

Surface Water Resources Work Plan

The Surface Water Resources Work Plan addresses both surface water quality and surface water quantity. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:

• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 2-1 • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Surface Water Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:

Predict and assess future surface water runoff and peak flows and quality conditions associated with each of the alternative methods.

Compare these predictions to the existing conditions; determine changes and potential adverse effects on downstream watercourses; determine if mitigation measures are required and, if so, develop mitigation (i.e., engineered stormwater management measures/facilities).

Based on the Alternative Methods and the results of predictive modelling, identify the potential effects of each alternative on the surface water environment.

Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the surface water component, rank the alternatives, and identify the Recommended Alternative from a surface water perspective.

• Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in a Surface Water Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-4

Table 2-1 – Preliminary Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Predicted effects on • Topographic maps surface surface water quality • Surface Water Existing Conditions water quality on-site and off-site Report • • Air photos • Facility layout, drainage maps and figures • Proposed on-site stormwater management concept designs for vertical expansion alternatives • Existing leachate management system • Annual Monitoring Report for SCRF • Interviews and discussions with staff, Surface Water Ministry of Environment and Climate Resources Effect on • Predicted change in Change (MOECC), Conservation surface drainage areas Authorities, and Environment Canada water • Predicted occurrence and • quantity degree of off-site effects Published water quality and flow information from MOECC, Environment Canada and conservation authorities • Site reconnaissance • PWQMN • Surface Water Existing Conditions Report • Annual reports and previously submitted stormwater reports for previously prepared EA and CofA’s

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-5

Appendix D-3

Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment Work Plan

The Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Work Plan addresses both terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic ecosystems. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing terrestrial and aquatic environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:

• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 3-1 • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:

Predict and assess potential impacts of the alternative methods on the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem.

Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from a Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment perspective • Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in a Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.

Table 3-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Predicted impact on • Previous site surveys terrestrial vegetation communities • Site investigations ecosystems • Predicted impact on • MNRF databases wildlife habitat • City of Hamilton Official Plan • Predicted impact on • Hamilton Conservation Authority vegetation and wildlife databases including rare, threatened • Natural Environment Existing Terrestrial & or endangered species Conditions Aquatic Effect on • Predicted impact on • Previous site surveys Environment aquatic aquatic habitat • Site investigations ecosystems • Predicted impact on • Ministry of Natural Resources and aquatic biota Forestry (MNRF) databases • City of Hamilton Official Plan • Hamilton Conservation Authority databases • Natural Environment Existing Conditions

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-6

Appendix D-4

Land Use Work Plan

The Land Use Work Plan addresses both existing land uses and visual or views from the existing SCRF. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing land use environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:

• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 4-1 • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information, (land uses, viewpoints and viewsheds) compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Land Use Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:

Predict and assess potential impacts of the alternative methods on the existing land uses and viewpoints from the SCRF utilizing visualization software and simulations.

Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the land use Environment component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from a land use Environment perspective

• Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in a Land Use Environment Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.

Table 4-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Current land use • Aerial photographic mapping and field existing land investigations uses • Land Use Existing Conditions Report

Land Use

Effect on • Predicted changes in • Alternative methods views of the views of the facility from • Site grading plans facility the surrounding area • Aerial mapping and field investigation • Land Use Existing Conditions Report

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-7

Appendix D-5

Atmospheric Environment Work Plan

The Atmospheric Environment Work Plan addresses air quality, noise, and odour. The following tasks will be carried out to characterize existing atmospheric environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures (if required) and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:

• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 5-1 • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and finalize location and nature of potential off-site receptors and document the findings in the Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Compile and document climate normals for the project site, and document the existing climatic conditions.

• Consult with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) and other members of the Government Review Team (GRT) on the modeling protocols to be used in the assessment.

• Update existing on-site odour sampling to characterize sources of odour and provide data for input to the air quality and odour assessments.

• Update existing noise measurements on-site for environmentally significant mechanical noise sources (stationary and mobile landfill equipment) and off-site measurements as necessary to input into an acoustical model to determine the existing baseline environmental noise levels at potential sensitive points of reception.

• The development of an AERMOD atmospheric dispersion model for the site, (prepared in accordance with MOECC’s Air Dispersion Modelling Guide for Ontario (ADMGO)) which will be used to predict effects of the proposed operations. The sources of the data will be reviewed with the MOECC prior to finalization of the modelling dataset

• The development of an ISO 9613 prediction model for the Site, which will be used to predict effects of the proposed operations.

• Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:

Predict and assess potential impacts (including cumulative effects for particulate) of the alternative methods from an atmospheric perspective, including assessing emissions from the Alternative Methods in accordance with applicable MOECC guidance documents. The assessment will focus on the predicted maximum air quality and odour effects associated with each of the Alternative Methods. This study will focus on property line and sensitive receptors.

Predict and assess potential impacts from a noise perspective in accordance with applicable MOECC Noise guidelines. Noise generation from existing equipment operating at the site will be based on measurements from the existing landfill or data from a database of similar and representative noise sources. This will be followed by the execution of a noise prediction model for each alternative method. The results of this study will predict the worst-case, one hour, off-site environmental noise impacts from each of the alternative methods at the points of reception subject of the study. A point of reception means an

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-8

MOECC prescribed location on a noise sensitive land use (existing dwelling or zoned land use) where noise from a stationary source is received.

Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the Atmosperhic component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from an Atmospheric Environment perspective • Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in an Atmospheric Environment Impact Assessment Report (in accordance with MOECC reporting guidelines/requirements) that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.

Table 5-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect of • Predicted off-site • Environment Canada or MOECC hourly air point of meteorological data and climate normals quality impingement • Hamilton Air Monitoring Network (HAMN) data on off- concentrations • National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) site (µg/m3) of indicator Ambient Air Monitoring Station 60513 (Hamilton receptors compounds Mountain) • Number of off-site • Site ambient air monitoring, continuous emissions receptors monitoring data potentially affected • Applicable MOECC guidelines and technical (residential standards (i.e., O.Reg. 419/05 Schedule 2, properties, public Schedule 3 and Schedule 6 Standards) facilities, • Aerial photographic mapping and field Atmospheric businesses, and reconnaissance Environment institutions) • Off-Site receptors confirmed on recent mapping • Community Health • Emissions Summary and Dispersion Modelling Assessment (ESDM) reports • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF • Available background ambient air data • Waste materials and leachate characterization and sampling data • Proposed facility characteristics • Landfill design and operation data and associated topography • Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report • Community Health Assessment Reviews

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-9

Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect of • Predicted off-Site • Published odour studies for similar source types odours odour • Site specific odour source data and/or ambient on off- concentrations (µg odour monitoring data site /m3 and odour • Environment Canada or MOECC hourly receptors units) meteorological data and climate normals • Number of off-Site • Applicable MOECC guidelines and technical receptors standards (i.e., O.Reg. 419/05 Schedule 2, potentially affected Schedule 3 and Schedule 6 Standards) (residential • Site odour complaints history properties, public • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF facilities, • Aerial photographic mapping and field businesses and reconnaissance institutions) • Off-site receptors confirmed on recent mapping • Odour assessment reports • Waste materials and leachate characterization and sampling data • Proposed facility characteristics • Landfill design and operation data and associated topography • Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report Effect of • Predicted off-Site • Site-specific equipment noise measurements noise on noise level • Manufacturer provided noise specifications off-site • Number of off-Site • Applicable MOECC guidelines and technical receptors receptors standards (Noise guidelines for landfill sites, Oct, potentially affected 1998; NPC-300, August, 2013; NPC-233). (residential • Aerial photographic mapping and field properties, public reconnaissance to confirm off-Site receptors facilities, • Land Use Zoning Plans businesses, and • Acoustic Assessment Reports institutions). • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF • Proposed facility operational characteristics and scenarios • Landfill design and operation data and associated topography • Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-10

Appendix D-6

Transportation Work Plan

The Transportation work plan addresses traffic operations. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:

• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 6-1 • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Transportation existing conditions that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:

Predict and assess future traffic conditions associated with each of the alternative methods.

Compare these predictions to the existing conditions; determine changes and potential adverse effects on road network and intersections; determine if mitigation measures are required and, if so, develop mitigation.

Based on the Alternative Methods and the results of traffic modelling, identify the potential effects of each alternative.

Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the transportation component, rank the alternatives, and identify the Recommended Alternative from a transportation perspective.

• Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in a Transportation Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.

Table 6-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Potential for traffic • Previous traffic studies traffic collisions • City of Hamilton data Transportation • Level of Service at • Traffic Existing Conditions Report intersections around the SCRF

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-11

Appendix D-7

Economic Environment Work Plan

The Economic Environment Work Plan addresses various economic aspects including land use. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:

• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 7-1 • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Economic Environment Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Define costs of services to customers and economic benefits to local municipality (royalty program)

• Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:

Predict and assess potential impacts of the alternative methods on current and planned future land uses.

Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the Economic Environment component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from an Economic Environment perspective.

• Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in an Economic Environment Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-12

Table 7-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources

Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Number, extent, and • City of Hamilton Official Plan approved/planned type of • City of Hamilton Zoning By-law land uses approved/planned land • City of Hamilton development data uses affected and plans • Economic Existing Conditions Report

Economic benefit • Employment at site • Alternative methods Economic to the City of (number and duration) • Total volume of post-diversion Hamilton and solid, non-hazardous residual local community material calculated to be received • Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (Attachment A to Supporting Document #1 of the ToR) • Economic Existing Conditions Report

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-13

Appendix D-8

Archaeology and Built Heritage Work Plan

The Archaeology and Built Heritage Work Plan addresses both archaeological resources and cultural and heritage resources (built and cultural landscapes).

The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking: • Complete the Cultural Heritage Screening Checklist from the Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport (MTCS) and submit to MTCS to determine if further study is required.

Table 8-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Number and type of • Published data sources (e.g., City of known or potentially significant, Hamilton) potential known archaeological • Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and significant sites affected. Sport Screening archaeological • Area (ha) of resources archaeological potential (i.e., lands with potential Archaeology for the presence of and Built significant archaeological Heritage resources) affected.

Effect on built Number and type of built • Published data sources (e.g., City of heritage heritage resources and Hamilton) resources and cultural heritage • Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and cultural landscapes displaced or Sport Screening heritage disrupted landscapes

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-14

Appendix D-9

Design and Operations Work Plan

The Design and Operations Work Plan address both the ability of the site design to provide the service identified as well as providing the financial analysis (i.e. cost).

The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking: • Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 9-1 • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings as part of the Conceptual Designs that will be prepared for each of the Alternative Methods.

• Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:

Identify the potential effects of each alternative from a Design and Operations perspective.

Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the Design and Operations component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from a Design and Operations perspective.

• Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and groundwater monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in the Design and Operations Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.

Table 9-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Potential to • Ability of Alternative • Existing Design and Operations provide Methods to provide Report service for disposal capacity for • Conceptual Designs disposal post-diversion solid, non- Design & hazardous industrial Operations residual material Cost of facility Approximate relative cost • Existing Design and Operations of Alternative Methods Report • Conceptual Designs Cost estimates

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | D-15

Appendix E

Proposed terms of Reference Commitments Table

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) | E-i DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Proposed Terms of Reference Commitments and How They Were Addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA

Proposed Terms of Reference Commitment How was the Commitment Addressed in the SCRF EA Where the Commitment is Addressed in the SCRF EA 1. The EA will be prepared in accordance with subsection 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EA Act.

Section 3 2. 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

Section 4 3. 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

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

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

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

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

• Alternative Method No. 6: Horizontal and Vertical Expansion of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility Section 5

4. 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.

Section 5 5. 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).

Section 5 6. 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

Section 5

2/2/2017 11102771 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Proposed Terms of Reference Commitments and How They Were Addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA

Proposed Terms of Reference Commitment How was the Commitment Addressed in the SCRF EA Where the Commitment is Addressed in the SCRF EA 7. 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.

Section 6 8. 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.

Section 6.2.6 9. 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.

Section 6.2.6.1 10. 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

Section 6.2.6.2 11. 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.

Section 6.2.6.3 12. The specific potential environmental effects will be determined during the preparation of the SCRF EA.

Section 6.2.6.3 13. The alternative methods will be assessed and evaluated to identify the proposed undertaking for which EA Act approval will be sought.

Section 7.1 14. The SCRF EA will consider potential effects on the environment associated with the following timeframes:

• Construction • Operation

• Closure/Post-closure

Section 7.1

2/2/2017 11102771 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Proposed Terms of Reference Commitments and How They Were Addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA

Proposed Terms of Reference Commitment How was the Commitment Addressed in the SCRF EA Where the Commitment is Addressed in the SCRF EA 15. 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

Section 7.1.1 16. The Alternative Methods will be assessed through a “net effects analysis”.

Section 7.1.1.1 17. Terrapure will review the Alternative Methods from a climate change adaptation and mitigation perspective

Section 7.1.1.1 18. 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.

Section 7.1.1.2 19. The rationale for selecting the Recommended Method will be provided as part of the SCRF EA.

Section 7.1.1.2 20. 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.

Section 7.1.2 21. 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.

Section 7.2 22. During the impact assessment, Terrapure will review the Preferred Method from a climate change adaptation and mitigation perspective.

Section 7.2 23. 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).

Section 7.2 24. The impact assessment of the Preferred Method will be documented as part of the SCRF EA.

Section 7.2

2/2/2017 11102771 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Proposed Terms of Reference Commitments and How They Were Addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA

Proposed Terms of Reference Commitment How was the Commitment Addressed in the SCRF EA Where the Commitment is Addressed in the SCRF EA 25. 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.

Section 7.3 26. 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. 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.

Section 8.1 27. Terrapure is committed to developing a monitoring framework during preparation of the SCRF EA that will address environmental effects and, as applicable, EA compliance.

Section 8.2 28. 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.

Section 8.2 29. 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.

Section 8.2 30. 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.

• 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.

2/2/2017 11102771 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Proposed Terms of Reference Commitments and How They Were Addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA

Proposed Terms of Reference Commitment How was the Commitment Addressed in the SCRF EA Where the Commitment is Addressed in the SCRF EA

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

Section 9.1 31. Input will be obtained from interested participants during the SCRF EA through a variety of means • specific to each of the following three participant groups: • Review agencies as applicable • Aboriginal communities

• Public

Section 9.1.2

2/2/2017 11102771 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Proposed Terms of Reference Commitments and How They Were Addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA

Proposed Terms of Reference Commitment How was the Commitment Addressed in the SCRF EA Where the Commitment is Addressed in the SCRF EA 32. 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 - 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.

• 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.

Section 9.1.3 33. 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.

Section 9.1.4 34. In addition to approval of the EA under the EA Act, applications will be made, as necessary, under a number of provincial statutes for approval 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

• Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) MOECC

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

Section 11

2/2/2017 11102771

Supporting Document #1

Terrapure’s Business Case

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16) Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.

Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Supporting Document #1: Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility - Business Case Analysis

1195 Stellar Drive, Unit #1 Newmarket Ontario L3Y 7B8 Canada 11102771 | Report No 15 | February 8 2017

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Undertaking and Alternatives To Analysis ...... 2 1.1.1 Waste Generation in Ontario – Overview ...... 6 1.1.2 Industrial Waste Generation ...... 6 1.1.3 Summary ...... 12 1.1.4 Potential Alternatives To/Options to address the Economic Opportunity...... 12 1.1.5 Analysis of Alternatives To/Options ...... 14 1.1.6 Preferred Alternative To/ Option ...... 17 1.1.7 Summary of Terrapure’s Business Decisions ...... 18 1.2 Future Role of the SCRF ...... 19

2. Conclusion ...... 19

Figures Index

Figure 1.1 Hamilton & Greater Toronto Study Area ...... 4 Figure 1.2 Percentage Breakdown of Residual Material Received by Location ...... 8 Figure 1.3 Hamilton & Greater Toronto Waste Sources ...... 9

Tables Index

Table 1.1 Historical Annual Tonnage ...... 7 Table 1.2 Location of Generated Waste (2010-2015) ...... 10 Table 1.3 Tonnage Received from local Steel Industry relative to Total Tonnage Received from Hamilton customers ...... 10 Table 1.4 Regional Customers/Projects (2010-2015) ...... 11

Attachments

Attachment A Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | i

1. Introduction

The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario (January, 2014), outlines how a Proponent can proceed under subsection 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) 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:

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:

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

• Export would affect their business; and,

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

Justification for preparing the Terms of Reference (ToR) with a predetermined purpose of the undertaking and alternatives to is provided in detail within this Supporting Document.

There is an economic opportunity associated with the ability of the existing Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) to accept additional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. This opportunity is based, in part, on an internal business case for adding disposal capacity at the existing SCRF, which included a review of historic industrial waste generation in Ontario. This analysis clearly predicted a continued demand for disposal capacity for this type of waste, and that the demand will significantly exceed the demand for the disposal capacity of industrial fill and soils, particularly as the province moves forward with its updated Excess Soil Management Policy and subsequent regulatory updates to promote reuse of excess soils. With this in mind, the Environmental Assessment (EA) process has been initiated to examine the various alternatives available to Terrapure to develop increased capacity for the disposal of post diversion solid, nonhazardous 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 increased disposal capacity. These would typically include the establishment of a new landfill or expanding the capacity of an existing site, such as the SCRF. Given the capital costs associated with the development of a

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 1

new landfill, and the difficulties in securing an adequate or suitable site, it can be reasonably argued that the creation of a new landfill may not be a practical alternative to address the economic opportunity of providing increased disposal capacity for a private sector Proponent, such as Terrapure. Accordingly, it is generally accepted that the most reasonable way of approaching this opportunity of providing increased capacity by a private sector Proponent with an existing, permitted 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, that the most reasonable way of addressing the opportunity is to examine the various ways in which capacity at the existing SCRF can be increased. Accordingly, as the ToR identifies that a predetermined “Alternative To” has been determined, approval is being sought to prepare an EA in accordance with subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the Act.

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 the sections that follow.

1.1 Purpose of the Undertaking and Alternatives To Analysis

As previously mentioned, Terrapure operate the SCRF, which is a unique facility in Ontario in that it only accepts post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material, consisting mainly of material from the steel making industry (i.e., basic oxygen furnace oxide, slag) and excavated soils from infrastructure development projects.

The SCRF does not accept what is known as “putrescible waste,” which is the waste that residents would typically discard from their homes (i.e., municipal solid waste, organic material). The existing SCRF is the only facility within Hamilton accepting only industrial residual material and soils. It is also unique from the perspective that its location is within close proximity to where the majority of these materials are generated, reducing the need for long haul transport and therefore reducing GHG emissions from longer haul travel to other locations in the Hamilton & the Greater Toronto Area (H>A), within Ontario or outside of Canada (i.e., across the border to Michigan and New York State). Essentially, the SCRF serves a primarily industrial customer base, who have already extracted the value from their residual material and need a permitted, environmentally secure facility to manage the residual material their operations generate.

For the purposes of this Supporting Document, the H>A is generally described as including the following municipal boundaries (note: this does not include municipal waste from these areas) (See Figure 1.1): • City of Hamilton • Region of Halton

• County of Haldimand

• County of Brant/City of Brantford

• Region of Niagara

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 2

• Region of Waterloo • County of Wellington/City of Guelph

• Region of Peel

• County of Dufferin • City of Toronto

• Region of York

• County of Simcoe/City of Barrie/City of Orillia • Region of Durham

• City of Kawartha Lakes

• County of Peterborough/City of Peterborough

• County of Northumberland

While the majority of the materials accepted at the SCRF are from within the H>A, the ECA for the facility allows for receipt of non-hazardous industrial residual materials generated anywhere within the Province of Ontario.

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 3 PETERBOROUGH

KAWARTHA SIMCOE LAKES

NORTHUMBERLAND

DUFFERIN DURHAM YORK

PEEL TORONTO WELLINGTON

HALTON WATERLOO

HAMILTON Legend ^ SCRF ^ Hamilton and Greater BRANT Toronto Area NIAGARA Distance From Facility HALDIMAND 25 km 50 km 100 km 200 km 500 km

Source: Insert source text here.

TERRAPURE ENVIRONMENTAL 11102771 0 12 24 36 STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY Feb 8, 2017

Kilometers

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N HAMILTON AND GREATER TORONTO STUDY AREA FIGURE 1.1

GIS File: Q:\GIS\PROJECTS\11102000s\11102771\Layouts\INT003\11102771-00(INT003)GIS-WA003.mxd

Terrapure intends to continue serving its existing customer base and is responding to the economic opportunity of providing waste management services to address the continued and growing demand from local and regional industries that require a facility that is permitted to manage the residual materials they generate. This is especially true for those businesses and operations within the local Hamilton area. Local businesses such as the steel industry and local infrastructure projects rely on the SCRF to provide a safe and environmentally sound disposal facility. This in turn supports the growth of the local Hamilton economy, as well as portions of the GTA. To demonstrate the types of projects that the SCRF supports, a list of recent projects is provided as follows:

Recent Key Projects Pan-am Aquatics Centre 2013 McMaster Children’s Hospital Expansion 2014/2015

St. Joseph’s Healthcare Centre 2014/2015

James Street CN/GO Station/Metrolinx 2014/2015

CN Centennial Pkwy 2014/2015

Stoney Creek Dairy (future site of retirement home) 2014

Good Shepherd Centre 2015

Upper James Road Remediation 2013

Joseph Brant Hospital Expansion (Burlington) 2015-2016

Bell & MacKenzie – Grit sand from the James N. Allan Skyway Bridge refurbishing 2013-ongoing

In addition to the recent key projects, there are a number of future projects that Terrapure is aware of within the Hamilton area that are expected to occur within the next 3-5 years, including redevelopment of key areas of the City (i.e., Pier 7 & 8, other sites along Hamilton Harbour, etc.) that will require a facility that can manage residual materials.

In 2015, Terrapure embarked on an internal business planning process to examine options related to long-term disposal capacity in order to continue providing waste management disposal services to clients beyond the current approved capacity for residual materials at the SCRF. The company determined that a long-term solution for additional residual disposal capacity was required to provide it with flexibility in how best to serve its existing waste clients while remaining competitive within the H>A marketplace.

As part of the business plan, Terrapure reviewed the following: • The current post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated in Ontario and within the H>A, requiring a local, safe and secure disposal facility. • Historic volumes accepted at the SCRF over the 20 year operating life of the site, as well as recent 5 year averages. • Anticipated future growth in H>A, as well as future post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated in Ontario and within the H>A, requiring a local, safe and secure disposal facility.

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 5

• Development and analysis of potential long-term disposal capacity options that Terrapure could potentially implement in order to continue providing waste management disposal services to its H>A businesses and customers.

A summary of the main elements of the business planning exercise is provided in detail within the subsequent section of this Document.

1.1.1 Waste Generation in Ontario – Overview

In 2012, Statistics Canada estimated that Ontario produced approximately 13 million tonnes of industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) waste and municipal solid waste (MSW) annually. Of this total, approximately 6 million tonnes are landfilled in Ontario, 3.5 million tonnes are landfilled in other jurisdictions (i.e., across the border to Michigan or New York), and 3.5 million tonnes are diverted from landfill (e.g., through recycling, composting, etc.). While IC&I waste makes up approximately 60 percent of the waste produced in Ontario, approximately 12 percent of IC&I sector waste is diverted from landfill at present.

In 2016, the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) published a State of Waste in Ontario: Landfill Report, which provided a breakdown on the amount of waste landfilled in Ontario as well as the amount of waste exported to other jurisdictions, specifically Michigan and New York State. In 2014, Ontario landfills received a total of 7.7 million tonnes of waste1. This includes MSW, industrial waste, hazardous waste, contaminated soil, and additional materials used for daily cover. These numbers do not include the nearly 3.5 million tonnes of waste that is exported annually to the United States (US). In its last report, Michigan indicated that 2.4 million tonnes of Canadian waste was imported, while New York has consistently imported around 1 million tonnes of waste from Ontario. The OWMA Report calculated Ontario’s existing landfill capacity to be between 11.4 years (if all waste generated in Ontario were to be disposed of in Ontario) to 16.5 years (if 30 percent of Ontario’s waste continues to be sent to the US for disposal)2. Recognizing that this represents all types of waste from various sectors, it nevertheless demonstrates the amount of waste generated in Ontario as well as the amount landfilled in Ontario or exported to landfills in the US. Further, it reinforces the fact that the amount of landfill capacity remaining in Ontario is decreasing – for all sectors.

Developing local solutions to address in province waste management needs is environmentally responsible, financially sound, and provides for secure waste management infrastructure for the existing customer base.

1.1.2 Industrial Waste Generation

As mentioned above, the breakdown of waste generation from the IC&I sector is approximately 60 percent of the total waste stream in Ontario. However, a further breakdown of materials generated specifically relating to the type of industrial residual material accepted at the SCRF is not available on an Ontario wide basis. As part of the business case established by Terrapure, a review of historical tonnages received at the SCRF was undertaken to understand the amount of post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material generated within the approved service area of the SCRF.

1 State of Waste in Ontario: Landfill Report, OWMA, 2016. 2 Ibid

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 6

Table 1.1 provides a break-down of the amount of material received over a 19 year period (1997 to 2015). The SCRF has received an annual average of 540,000 tonnes per year over its operating life.

Table 1.1 Historical Annual Tonnage

Annual Tonnage Received 1000000 900000 800000 700000 Annual 600000 Tonnage Received 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0

The SCRF has consistently accepted a high volume of solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material and the amount of this material has generally increased over the last 19 years. Over the last 5 years, the SCRF has accepted approximately 3.5 million tonnes of material, with a yearly average of approximately 700,000 tonnes.

The high volume of material received in 2011 largely relates to the Pan Am Games Aquatic Centre. The Pan Am Games Aquatic Centre needed to be completed by the end of 2011 and, as such, all material was brought to the SCRF in a rapid fashion to ensure the timelines would be met by the Province. Given the nature of the material (i.e. excavated soils) there were no concerns of any potential effects and the site was still within the daily/annual truck movements as permitted under the ECA. It should be noted that the additional volumes received in 2011 resulted in additional funds being generated for the royalty program with the City of Hamilton and the Heritage Green Community Trust (i.e. $1 to each for every tonne received). The top private landfills in Southern Ontario saw 82 percent of their annual capacity (combined) utilized in 2011.

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 7

The SCRF plays a critical role in supporting local industry and the local economy with a well-located, environmentally sound disposal outlet for post-diversion industrial residual materials. Nearly 50 percent of the materials received at the facility come from industrial operations directly located within the City of Hamilton, while more than 93 percent of the materials received at the SCRF are generated at locations within the H>A (See Figure 1.2).

3% 10% Hamilton

Halton

Haldimand

49% Peel 24% Waterloo

Toronto

Wellington/Guelph 3% 3% Other 4% 5%

Figure 1.2 Percentage Breakdown of Residual Material Received by Location

Figure 1.3 demonstrates the H>A waste sources and tonnages received relative to the service area (including distances) this EA is focused on, which shows the key role the SCRF plays as a regional facility.

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 8 !

! !

! PETERBOROUGH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! KAWARTHA ! SIMCOE LAKES ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! NORTHUMBERLAND ! ! ! ! ! ! DUFFERIN DURHAM ! ! ! ! ! ! ! YORK ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WELLINGTON ! ! PEEL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Legend ! ! ! TORONTO ! ! ! ^ ! SCRF ! ! ! ! ! ! Hamilton and Greater ! ! ! ! ! Toronto Area HALTON ! ! ! ! ! ! Distance From Site WATERLOO ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 25 km ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 50 km ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! 100 km ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 200 km ! HAMILTON! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 500 km ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^ ! ! ! ! Tonnage of Waste Received ! ! (last 5 years of operation) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! BRANT Source Outside GTHA ! NIAGARA

! ! ! ! < 12,000 ! ! ! ! ! HALDIMAND ! ! 12,000 - 45,000 ! ! ! ! ! 45,000 - 141,000 ! ! !

141,000 - 521,000 ! !

521,000 - 1,857,000 ! ! !

TERRAPURE ENVIRONMENTAL 11102771 0 12 24 36 STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY Feb 8, 2017

Kilometers

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N HAMILTON AND GREATER TORONTO AREA WASTE SOURCES FIGURE 1.3

GIS File: Q:\GIS\PROJECTS\11102000s\11102771\Layouts\INT003\11102771-00(INT003)GIS-WA002.mxd

Table 1.2 demonstrates the amount of solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material accepted at the SCRF from within the H>A and surrounding area relative to the total tonnage accepted over the last 6 years.

Table 1.2 Location of Generated Waste (2010-2015)

1,000,000.0 800,000.0 600,000.0 Beyond EA Study Area 400,000.0 Hamilton and Greater Toronto 200,000.0 Area 0.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

As one local example, the SCRF has accepted a significant quantity of material from the major local steel making industry over the life of the facility. Table 1.3 presents the tonnages received from the local steel industry in relation to the nearly 50 percent received from operations located within the City of Hamilton. 57 percent of all material received from industrial operations within the City of Hamilton comes from the local steel industry, demonstrating the significance of the SCRF to the local Hamilton economy.

Table 1.3 Tonnage Received from local Steel Industry relative to Total Tonnage Received from Hamilton customers

400,000.0 350,000.0 300,000.0 250,000.0 200,000.0 Hamilton - Other 150,000.0 Hamilton - Steel Industry 100,000.0 50,000.0 0.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Further, given the close proximity of the local steel industry to the SCRF, there are significant benefits in terms of reduced travel distance relative to alternative disposal sites and, ultimately, reduced GHG emissions. Through this proposed undertaking, Terrapure intends to maintain the waste management service it provides to long-standing local steel industry clients.

In addition to the local steel industry, the SCRF has supported a number of major infrastructure projects within the local Hamilton area, as well as across the GTA. An example of other major customers and projects from within the H>A that utilize the SCRF to manage their residual materials are identifed in Table 1.4.

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 10

Table 1.4 Regional Customers/Projects (2010-2015)

350000

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

The SCRF has provided capacity for residual material generated from other projects within the H>A that are facilitating a number of provincial intiatives including intensification in Growth Centres identified in the Places to Grow Act, as well as the supporting transportation infrastructure identified by Metrolinx in The Big Move. As an example, Terrapure provided capacity for the James Street North Hamilton GO Station for Metrolinx.

Development and re-development to accommodate the expected growth within the H>A will generate specific waste types, particularly during construction, and this residual material needs to be sent to a continually operated, local facility that is reliable, trusted, permitted and operating to the highest possible standards. This facility should be located close to the source of the generated residual material, prefereably within the local area. The SCRF offers this local and regional solution. A separate analysis3 (See Attachment A to Supporting Document #1) was completed with respect to the cost impacts for the SCRF’s current customers that would need to transport their residual material to alternative sites, should the proposed undertaking by Terrapure not move forward. Incremental costs to current SCRF customers were estimated by calculating the additional transportation costs based on distance (midpoint of each city from which residual materials were being transported by each customer for each alternative site, less the current distance to the SCRF site), multiplied by cost per kilometre (km)/tonne for each site, plus disposal costs per tonne.

Overall, the increased costs to SCRF customers of transporting wastes to alternative landfill sites is estimated to range from $4.8 million to $17.5 million per year. In present value terms, these higher costs range from about $28 million to $100 million over the course of the proposed additional residual capacity lifespan of the SCRF under the proposed undertaking. The economic impacts of these increased costs are considerable as four principal sectors of the Ontario economy would be

3 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, RIAS Inc., 2017

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 11

affected – non-residential construction, waste management and remediation services, steel manufacturers, and petroleum refining operations.

1.1.3 Summary

Based on the historic tonnages accepted at the SCRF, Terrapure has determined that there is a sustainable economic opportunity for the company to continue to provide disposal capacity for post- diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material.

1.1.4 Potential Alternatives To/Options to address the Economic Opportunity

After identifying that there is an economic opportunity for Terrapure to continue to provide disposal capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material, Terrapure developed and analyzed potential long-term disposal capacity options that it could potentially implement in order to continue providing waste management disposal services to H>A businesses and customers. As part of the business plan, four potential options (Alternatives To) were developed and reviewed:

1. Do Nothing or Status Quo – Maintain existing approvals for the SCRF

2. Modify the SCRF – Increase the capacity for accepting post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material

3. Develop a new site – The new site would be established within the vicinity of the majority of customers and source of residual waste materials

4. Export – Take residual materials to other approved facilities within the Province of Ontario

A summary of the options (Alternatives To) reviewed during a series of internal business planning sessions is provided below.

Do Nothing or Status Quo

The status quo option would mean that the current SCRF would no longer have the capacity to accept post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material after the currently approved capacity for waste is exhausted in approximately 2-4 years (as of the beginning of 2017). Terrapure would be required to find an alternative way to dispose of the post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material it currently receives from a number of existing, local and regional customers who rely on the SCRF to dispose of this unique waste stream. Approximately 50 percent of the materials received at the facility come from industrial operations directly located within the City of Hamilton. The SCRF plays a critical role in supporting local industry and the local economy with a conveniently located, environmentally sound facility for non-recyclable industrial residual material.

Under the status quo option, a number of long-standing users of the SCRF, including major Hamilton steel making businesses, would be forced to haul their industrial residual material further to an appropriately sized and approved facility (the closest facility is approximately 50 km further east from the SCRF, one way travel). This would increase the cost to users to manage their residual material and would increase the associated carbon footprint. In addition, the SCRF has provided the H>A with the closest regional option for waste generated during major infrastructure and development projects in the H>A, including the McMaster Children’s Hospital expansion, the new James Street GO Station and the Stoney Creek Dairy future site remediation, thereby negating long-haul trips and reducing GHG output.

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 12

Modify the Stoney Creek Regional Facility to Increase Capacity for Residual Materials

This option would utilize the existing SCRF and would add capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials at the site. This could occur on lands that include the existing approved footprint, areas outside of the approved footprint within the existing site perimeter, and the area of the site currently designated to receive industrial soils/fill.

Providing for additional capacity at this site and moving the existing footprint is not a new concept. The original EA approval (1996) and Design and Operations (D&O) Plan (1995) for this site included a limit of waste that was a minimum of 30 m from the property line along Green Mountain Road. The site was reconfigured in 2013 to reduce the overall waste footprint area from 59.1 ha to approximately 41.5 ha, while increasing the height. This effectively pushed the limit of waste back from Green Mountain Road to a setback distance of approximately between 140 and 280 m. This revision to the footprint was approved in 2014 by the MOECC as an amendment to the ECA and SCRF D&O.

The rationale for revising the footprint under the previous ownership was to reduce the size of the footprint to an area consistent with the base liner that had been constructed to date at that time. There was no change in the approved landfill disposal volume as part of the previous footprint revisions.

Terrapure is seeking to respond to the economic opportunity of providing additional disposal capacity for businesses and industrial operations within the H>A based on the significant, growing demands from local customers, particularly those in Hamilton who bring approximately 50 percent of the residual material to the SCRF. Industries such as steel-making and infrastructure developments rely on the SCRF to provide a safe, environmentally sound facility to support the growth of the local economy. This option would allow for the SCRF to maintain its standing as a regional facility and provide continued service to the H>A market and existing local and regional customers.

Establish a New Site Elsewhere in the City of Hamilton

Under this option, Terrapure would initiate an EA and other required approval processes to find, construct and operate a new (greenfield) site within the City of Hamilton. This would mean that the existing SCRF would continue to operate and accept industrial fill/soils until the maximum approved limit of this material is accepted (2,000,000 m3). The new facility would be built elsewhere within the City of Hamilton in order to continue to serve the existing industrial customers as close to where the residual material is generated, which includes 50 percent from within the City of Hamilton. This would require that Terrapure determine an appropriate location and acquire the site for development. In order to achieve this alternative, a suitable site would need to be identified within the City of Hamilton, as well as obtaining all necessary regulatory approvals and agreements.

There would be considerable uncertainty in the scope, timing and cost of the approval processes, which would be expected to take many years and the outcome itself would be uncertain. It is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that a new site could be approved and made operational by 2018-19, when the current residual material disposal capacity of the SCRF is expected to be reached. To justify the cost and effort, a new landfill would need an operational lifespan of 25 years or more, well beyond the planning period for the purposes of this undertaking. In addition, a new facility would need to be identified and located within the City of Hamilton, otherwise it would not provide a location as close to the majority of residual material accepted (50 percent from within the City of Hamilton as well as to the remaining regional users).

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 13

The cost for approval, construction and operation of a new facility would be significant, and it should be noted that a new “greenfield” site has not been developed in Ontario in the last 15+ years. Further, Terrapure would be operating two independent sites within the City of Hamilton, one new site for solid, non-hazardous industrial waste, and the existing SCRF for industrial soils/fill.

Export to Other Disposal Facilities

This option assumes that the SCRF would be used until it reaches its approved solid, non-hazardous industrial waste capacity limits. This alternative would see post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial wastes delivered to the existing SCRF or another location (such as Terrapure’s Brant Street transfer station), processed (if necessary) and then transferred to other waste disposal facilities able to accept solid, non-hazardous waste. Under this option, the existing SCRF would continue to operate and accept industrial fill/soils until the maximum approved limit of this material is accepted (approximately 2,000,000 m3).

It is anticipated that the waste would be transferred to other disposal facilities not owned by Terrapure in Ontario (e.g., Waste Management’s Twin Creeks Landfill (near Sarnia), Walker Environmental Group’s South Landfill (near Niagara Falls)), Michigan, or New York State. This would allow for Terrapure to continue a portion of its business (i.e., collection and transfer), but would rely on other operators for disposal. Further, the distance the waste will travel from the H>A will be greater as the nearest options are near Niagara Falls and Sarnia, thereby increasing the overall costs of disposal and GHG emissions associated with transportation.

1.1.5 Analysis of Alternatives To/Options

Terrapure reviewed the pros and cons of the options described above, with the main evaluation lens on assessing whether or not the option would satisfy the economic opportunity that Terrapure is seeking to achieve by providing economic, long-term, post-diversion solid, non-hazardous residual industrial material disposal capacity to meet existing and growing demand. A summary of the analysis is provided below.

Do Nothing or Status Quo • This option does not satisfy the economic opportunity or goals for Terrapure within the H>A.

• Closure of the existing SCRF would create a significant gap in the company’s services for long-standing customers within the H>A. Historically, approximately 50 percent of the annual disposal capacity for residual material is generated by businesses and operations located within the City of Hamilton and 93 percent within the H>A. • Without the ability to provide regional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material disposal capacity, Terrapure’s operations within the H>A would have to be significantly restructured, as the company would need to realign operations to be able to receive, transfer and ship these materials to other locations outside the region. • This option is not acceptable to Terrapure from an economic perspective, as it would place the company at a significant economic disadvantage within the local marketplace and decrease its ability to compete within the Ontario market. • The additional trucking required to take the industrial waste generated within the H>A outside of the regional area would increase GHG and are not consistent with Ontario’s current priorities relating to climate change and the Waste Free Ontario Act and Strategy, which calls for zero GHG emissions within the waste sector by 2030. It is expected that the “Status Quo”

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 14

option would potentially increase GHG emissions for longer trips to other waste facilities by approximately 23,500 to 64,000 tonnes per year4. • The requirement to ship to other locations would also create a financial burden to Ontario industries, ranging from about $28 million to $100 million, in present value terms5 over the course of the proposed additional residual capacity lifespan of the SCRF under the proposed undertaking.

Based on the above, Terrapure does not consider the status quo option as reasonable for its ongoing business or its customers within the H>A.

Modify the Stoney Creek Regional Facility to increase capacity • This option would meet Terrapure’s economic goals by continuing to provide local and regional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material disposal capacity to its existing H>A customers.

• The site has been operating in compliance for the past 20 years, clearly demonstrating its ability to safely manage non-hazardous industrial residual materials with no health or environmental impacts. This has been reinforced by a City of Hamilton peer reviewed Landfill Impact Assessment conducted by a residential developer operating north of the site (Final Revised Landfill Impact Assessment, MTE, September, 2010) and an evaluation conducted by Hamilton Public Health Services in 2012.

• This option would be implemented with minimal issues (practically and economically) as the majority of infrastructure is currently in place or can be put in place in a cost-effective manner. • The SCRF has been successfully operating since 1996 and has become an important contributor to the local community by creating employment opportunities, hosting educational events and facility tours, and contributing financially to the City of Hamilton and the Heritage Green Community Trust, which provides grants to numerous community facilities and initiatives.

• Increasing the residual waste capacity at the SCRF would allow Terrapure to continue to provide a significant economic contribution to the local community, with well-paying jobs and over $14 million in additional funding to community groups and local infrastructure projects.

It is important to note that $1 per tonne of residual material accepted at the SCRF is provided to the Heritage Green Community Trust and to the City of Hamilton (each) – this does not continue with the current future requirement for receiving industrial fill. If Terrapure were to proceed with this option to add disposal capacity at the SCRF, the financial contributions to both the Heritage Green Community Trust and the City of Hamilton, would continue.

• This option is consistent with applicable land use planning controls and will allow for continued regional service to industry and other customers within the H>A. • This option is consistent with Ontario government priorities, namely climate change and reduction of GHG as reconfiguration of the SCRF site would avoid increased GHG emissions associated with transporting materials to other locations longer distances away, ranging from about 23,500 to 64,000 tonnes per year6.

4 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, RAIS Inc., 2017. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 15

• This option is consistent with the Ontario government’s draft Waste Free Ontario Act and Strategy regarding landfills, which states that “while Ontario strives for a waste-free future, there will still be a need for landfill space as we work towards this goal”, but also notes that new landfill space will be required in the province. • Adding capacity to the SCRF would avoid considerable cost increases for customers of the current SCRF associated with transporting materials to other locations further away.

During the analysis of potential options, Terrapure factored in the transformative waste management legislation (Waste Free Ontario Act) that was proposed at the time of completing its internal business plan. While Ontario works towards its goal of zero waste, as identified in the Waste Free Ontario Act and in particular the Strategy for a Waste Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy, there will still be a need for landfill space, particularly as it relates to the redevelopment and intensification of property within H>A. The Strategy also discusses how the Province would carefully consider the need and location of landfills, including the expansion of existing sites. Adding capacity to the existing Terrapure SCRF would ensure that Terrapure can continue to provide solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material disposal capacity on a regional basis, and would not put Terrapure at an economic disadvantage within the local marketplace and allow the company to continue to compete within the Ontario market.

Based on the above, this option is the most practical, financially and economically viable option to address the identified business need to allow Terrapure to continue meeting the existing and growing demand for its operations in the long-term; making the most efficient use of an existing facility already designated for this purpose and site infrastructure already developed.

Establish a New Site Elsewhere in the City of Hamilton. • Terrapure is not aware of other lands within the City of Hamilton that have been identified as suitable for a new site that could accommodate the continuance of post-diversion solid, non-hazardous residual material disposal services.

• Although Terrapure does own other properties within Hamilton (i.e., Brant Street transfer station), they are not suitable for disposal of post-diversion solid, non-hazardous residual material.

• As a private corporation, Terrapure does not have the powers of expropriation to obtain a site, if such a location existed. • A new site within the City of Hamilton would require additional approvals under the Planning Act (i.e. Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments), adding a degree of uncertainty to the process. • The development of a new site elsewhere in the City of Hamilton is also not an economically attractive option. If a new site was identified and approved, it would require a significant investment with respect to land purchase, building, services and utility construction and creation of infrastructure and management. • The ability to utilize the required infrastructure that is already in place at the current SCRF operation would be lost. Making capital and operational investments elsewhere would put Terrapure at a financial disadvantage and make the business less competitive. • It is extremely unlikely that Terrapure could identify, purchase and secure approvals for a new site within a reasonable time period relative to the remaining lifespan for solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material at the current SCRF.

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 16

Based on the above, this option is not practical from a timing standpoint relative to the remaining capacity at the existing site, nor is it economically acceptable to Terrapure, given a number of uncertainties and risk associated with obtaining an appropriate site as well as from a future approvals perspective.

Export to Other Disposal Facilities • Exporting of waste to a facility outside of the H>A, either in Ontario or out-of-country (i.e., Michigan, New York State) does not satisfy Terrapure’s economic goals. • Relying on a third party for disposal is not economically acceptable as Terrapure’s customers would not only be charged for transport, transfer and disposal fees, but could also be subjected to the risks associated with the trans-boundary movement of wastes. • Reliance on a third party disposal facility would put Terrapure at a significant economic disadvantage competitively and would harm its ability to continue providing services to the local and regional customers within the H>A.

• This option is also not consistent with Ontario government priorities, including climate change and reduction of GHG. The additional trucking required to take the industrial waste generated within the H>A outside of the regional area, would increase GHG emissions and are not consistent with the current Ontario priorities relating to climate change and the Waste Free Ontario Act and Strategy, which calls for zero GHG emissions within the waste sector by 2030. • It is expected that this alternative would potentially increase GHG emissions for longer trips to other waste facilities by approximately 23,500 to 64,000 tonnes per year7. • The requirement to ship to other locations would create a financial burden to Ontario industries.

• It is no longer acceptable to assume that waste may be exported to the U.S. because of strong political opposition. Exporting waste to the U.S. is both costly and risky due to fluctuations in the value of the Canadian dollar, fuel prices, and the potential for border closures to Canadian waste due to security, health or other concerns.

Based on the above, this option does not support Terrapure’s regional service model for the H>A and puts the company and its customers at a significant financial and economic disadvantage in the market.

1.1.6 Preferred Alternative To/ Option

Based on the work undertaken during the business case and planning process, the company determined that the most advantageous option to meet the long-term solution for additional residual disposal capacity, while also continuing to operate its business and meet economic goals, is to increase the disposal capacity at the existing SCRF.

The existing SCRF has been successfully operating since 1996 and wishes to remain an active member of the community through the continued operation of this site. The establishment of a new landfill site or export of waste elsewhere are not feasible options from an economic perspective. As a result, the only practical and financially feasible means of addressing the identified business opportunity for providing continued local and regional post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material disposal capacity is to utilize the existing SCRF and increase it disposal capacity for post-diversion, solid non-hazardous, industrial residual material.

7 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, RAIS Inc., 2017.

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 17

Terrapure has an opportunity to respond to the growing demands from local customers, particularly those in Hamilton. Local industries such as steel-making and local infrastructure developments like the McMaster Children’s Hospital expansion and the new James Street GO Station rely on the SCRF to provide a safe, environmentally sound facility to support the growth of the local economy. Fifty percent of the material received annually comes from industrial operations in the City of Hamilton, with a total of 93 percent coming from the H>A. If the material had to go to another facility farther away, it would add significant cost and environmental impact from increased transportation. Increasing capacity at the SCRF would avoid increased GHG emissions, ranging from about 23,500 to 64,000 tonnes per year8. Further, increasing the capacity at the SCRF would avoid considerable cost increases for customers of the current SCRF site. The preferred option would allow Terrapure to continue to provide a significant economic contribution to the local community, with well-paying jobs and over $14 million in additional funding to community groups and local infrastructure projects.

The other options do not address Terrapure’s economic goals or opportunity, nor do they avoid significant business risks that could put the company at a significant economic disadvantage within the waste sector in Ontario.

1.1.7 Summary of Terrapure’s Business Decisions

Given the economic opportunity that Terrapure may realize by providing long-term disposal capacity for customers within the H>A, Terrapure intends to consider the future operating role of this facility by increasing the overall capacity at the SCRF. Terrapure is therefore preparing to undertake the EA to provide for the ongoing operation of the SCRF to accept the same material that it is currently permitted to receive, while increasing the overall capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials.

In keeping with the MOECC Code of Practice, Terrapure determined the rationale for its proposed undertaking based on an analysis of the key opportunities including:

• Terrapure has an economic opportunity to respond to the growing demands from local customers, particularly those in the H>A and allow the company to continue providing waste management services and remain economically competitive in the waste sector in Ontario.

• Terrapure will continue to provide its existing regional customer base (i.e., local industrial clients, major public infrastructure undertakings within the H>A) with a local, reliable, secure and cost effective disposal option for post-diversion solid non-hazardous, industrial residual materials • Terrapure’s proposal aligns with the government’s direction on continuing to require a permitted, well-designed, environmentally-secure facility to manage residual materials, namely through the Strategy for a Waste Free Ontario: Building The Circular Economy. 9

• The SCRF will provide a safe and secure facility able to accept residual material from major infrastructure projects that support the H>A economy through the implementation of key provincial growth and transit-related developments (i.e., Growth Plan, Metrolinx). • Environmental impacts of GHG emissions will be minimized through a reduction in the number of waste related trucks hauling material over longer distances.

8 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, RAIS Inc., 2017. 9 Strategy for Waste Free Ontario and Circular Economy, Page 27

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 18

1.2 Future Role of the SCRF

Given that Terrapure wishes to move forward with increasing capacity at the SCRF to realize the economic opportunity established in its business plan, Terrapure undertook an internal review with respect to the total volume that could be accommodated at the SCRF. The initial capacity analysis was undertaken to determine; 1) the amount of material available that Terrapure could continue to capture; 2) how the SCRF could be modified to increase the approved capacity; and 3) the economic requirements to facilitate an increase in SCRF capacity. This initial capacity analysis was undertaken to guide the potential development of alternative methods, as well as to guide the economic considerations for the capacity expansion volume to be sought.

The SCRF currently has an approved capacity of 6,320,000 m3, plus an additional 2,000,000 m3 for industrial fill, for a site total of 8,320,000 m3. The internal business case completed by Terrapure to explore the economic opportunity to continue to meet demand from local customers and increase the total capacity at the SCRF for post-diversion solid non-hazardous industrial residual material reviewed a number of different capacity increase and scenarios. For the purposes of this business case, the capacity increase has been estimated at an increase of 3,680,000 m3of post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials. This estimate was a function of historical volumes accepted at the site over the past 20 years, with a focus on the last 5 year average, a review of how the site may accommodate additional volumes, while ensuring design and operation guidelines could be met and finally, an analysis on the overall net benefit/loss from an economic perspective.

The above points served as guide during the business planning process to facilitate the potential alternative methods that are described in the Proposed ToR.

2. Conclusion

Based on the historic tonnages accepted at the SCRF, Terrapure has determined that there is a sustainable market opportunity for the company to continue to provide disposal capacity for solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. Given the economic opportunity that Terrapure may realize by providing long-term disposal capacity for customers within the H>A, Terrapure intends to consider the future operating role of this facility by increasing the overall capacity for post- diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials at the SCRF by 3,680,000 m3. Terrapure is therefore preparing to undertake an EA to provide for the ongoing operation of the SCRF to accept the same material that it is currently permitted to receive, while increasing the overall capacity.

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | 19

Attachment A

Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility

GHD | Supporting Document #1 | 11102771 (15) | A-1

Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility

Prepared for:

January 2017

Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

Contents

1 Purpose of this Report ...... 2 2 Background ...... 2 3 Methodology ...... 2 3.1 Analytical Scenarios ...... 3 3.2 Key Parameters Used in the Analysis ...... 4 4 Economic Impacts ...... 5 4.1 Economic Impacts of the SCRF Site – Current Configuration ...... 5 4.2 Economic Impacts of the SCRF Site – With Re-configuration ...... 6 5 Assessment of Alternative Sites ...... 7 5.1 Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites...... 7 5.2 Environmental Impacts of Alternative Sites ...... 10 6 Conclusions ...... 12

List of Tables Table 1: Fill Rate and Site Lifespan Scenarios ...... 3 Table 2: I-O Multipliers by Sector ...... 4 Table 3: Transportation and Disposal Costs by Site ...... 4 Table 4: Share of Wastes and Distances to Sites by City (km) ...... 4 Table 5: Hamilton and Area Regional Economic Impacts - Current SCRF Configuration...... 5 Table 6: Ontario-wide Economic Impacts - Current SCRF Configuration ...... 6 Table 7: Hamilton and Area Regional Economic Impacts ...... 6 Table 8: Ontario-wide Economic Impacts ...... 7 Table 9: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on All Sectors ($000) ...... 8 Table 10: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Non-Residential Construction ($000) ...... 9 Table 11: Cost Impacts of Alternative Sites on Waste Management and Remediation ($000) ...... 9 Table 12: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Steel Manufacturing ($000) ...... 10 Table 13: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Petroleum Refining ($000) ...... 10 Table 14: Increases in GHGs for Transportation of Wastes to Alternative Sites ...... 11 Table 15: Best and Worst Case Environmental Impacts of Alternative Sites ...... 11

1 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

1 Purpose of this Report

This report provides an analysis of the economic impact of the current approved capacity and proposed additional capacity to Terrapure Environmental’s Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) on the regional economy of Hamilton and the Ontario economy.

2 Background

Terrapure Environmental is proposing to increase the capacity to its SCRF site to replace their current requirement to bring in industrial soil or “fill” with post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials while continuing to serve Stoney Creek and the Greater Hamilton area.

The existing SCRF site is located in the community of upper Stoney Creek, and serves primarily local industry. Approximately 50% of the materials received at the facility come from industrial operations directly within the City of Hamilton. Overall, more than 93% of the materials received at the facility are generated at locations within the Hamilton and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

The total approved capacity at the existing SCRF site is 6,320,000 m3 with an approved fill rate of 750,000 tonnes per year. Over the last 19 years, the site has consistently accepted industrial waste at an average rate of 540,000 tonnes per year, and 700,000 tonnes on average over the past 5 years.

The existing SCRF is expected to reach its approved capacity for solid, non-hazardous residual materials in the next 3 to 5 years. The site is also permitted to accept Table 3 materials (soil fill) and it is anticipated that due to market conditions, it would take a further 12-17 years for the site to reach maximum capacity for this material. Terrapure proposes to modify the site to enable the SCRF to accommodate an additional 3,680,000 m3 of solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials, which would bring the total overall waste capacity to 10,000,000 m3.

3 Methodology

Estimates of the economic impacts of the SCRF site have been developed using input-output modeling analysis (I-O). The analysis employs I-O multipliers for the Ontario economy from Statistics Canada’s Provincial Input-Output Multipliers - GDP components, 2010 (Industries, Detailed (D) aggregation). These factors have been adjusted to reflect the regional economy of the Greater Hamilton Area using additional Statistics Canada data for census metropolitan areas (CMAs).

There are three levels of economic impacts captured in I-O modeling: • Direct effects – the direct impacts on an industry given the output shock to the industry.

2 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

• Indirect effects – the effects on other industries which supply commodities to the impacted industry. • Induced effects – the effect of the change in labour income caused by the output shock on the demand for final goods and services.

Several economic measures from I-O modeling include total economic activity generated, and contribution to GDP, total employment and labour income. Additional measures are also calculated, such as municipal property taxes, fees and royalties paid, as well as provincial income and corporate taxes.

The direct, indirect and induced impacts of Terrapure’s planned post-diversion solid, non- hazardous industrial residual materials capacity increase to the SCRF site are then estimated, and compared to the economic impacts for a range of possible alternative sites for waste disposal. This analysis assesses and compares implications for various sectors (e.g. steel production, construction/infrastructure projects, construction/real estate development, waste management) operating in the Greater Hamilton, GTA region and surrounding areas.

Finally, the potential environmental impacts of transporting waste to alternative sites, such as increased GHG emissions and other environmental measures (NOx, VOC-Ozone, SOx, PM2.5, CFC + HFCs, other air toxics) are estimated using the GHGenius model, version 5.0 for Ontario.1

3.1 Analytical Scenarios

The economic impacts of the SCRF site are examined assuming fill rates of 600,000, 700,000 and 750,000 tonnes per year. These different fill rates affect the lifespan of the site to reach the proposed additional capacity of 3,680,000 m3 of material. It is important to note that the lifespan for our analysis only relates to the additional capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial waste, not the additional years that the site would be permitted to accept Table 3 (soil fill) materials2 to establish appropriate final grades at the site.

Table 1: Fill Rate and Site Lifespan Scenarios Fill rate Lifespan for Existing Lifespan for (tonnes/yr) Configuration Re-Configured Site Total Lifespan 600,000 2016 - 2019 2020 - 2031 16 years 700,000 2016 - 2018 2019 - 2029 14 years 750,000 2016 - 2018 2019 - 2028 13 years

1 The GHGenius model, developed for Natural Resources Canada, focuses on the life cycle assessment (LCA) of current and future fuels for transportation applications for three impact categories: primary greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants from combustion sources and the energy used. The specific categories measured in the model include greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC-12), and Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC-134a), as well as other air contaminants: Carbon monoxide (CO), Nitrogen oxides (NOx), Non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs), Sulphur dioxide (SO2), and total particulate matter. 2 Fill materials that meet Table 3 criteria of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA).

3 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

3.2 Key Parameters Used in the Analysis

This section provides a summary of the key data and parameters used in the analysis. The I-O multipliers used to estimate the direct, indirect and induced economic impacts of the SCRF site are summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2: I-O Multipliers by Sector Direct Direct + Indirect + Induced / Direct

Output GDP Jobs Income Output GDP Jobs Income

Waste Management 1.00 0.65 5.04 0.27 1.61 1.51 1.69 1.70 Iron and Steel Mills 1.00 0.17 2.03 0.19 1.69 3.17 2.72 2.11 Non-residential Construction 1.00 0.47 6.35 0.39 1.82 1.97 1.72 1.68 Petroleum Refineries 1.00 0.09 0.19 0.03 1.30 2.51 7.33 4.03 Source: Statistics Canada’s Provincial Input-Output Multipliers - GDP components, 2010

Transportation and disposal costs for alternative sites are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Transportation and Disposal Costs by Site Transportation Costs Disposal Costs Sites $/km $/tonne SCRF $0.1125 $45.00 Walker Industries - Atlas Landfill $0.1120 $30.00 Waste Management Solutions - Twin Creeks Landfill $0.1000 $35.00 Waste Management Solutions - Petrolia Landfill $0.1000 $35.00 Progressive Waste Solutions - Ridge Landfill $0.1066 $35.00 Waste Services Inc. - Navan Road Landfill $0.0761 $35.00 LaFleche - Eastern Landfill $0.0716 $35.00 Republic Services - Carleton Farms Landfill $0.0716 $25.36 Modern Corporation - Modern Landfill $0.1120 $39.11 Source: Terrapure Environmental

Table 4 shows a breakdown of the source of waste for the SCRF site by city, as well as the distances from these waste sources to various landfill sites.

Table 4: Share of Wastes and Distances to Sites by City (km)

and

Nanticoke Mississauga Guelph Oakville Brantford Other Cities and Towns Scarborough Hamilton Toronto Share of waste for SCRF site 49% 23% 3.5% 2.7% 2.4% 2% 1.8% 15% Distances

SCRF 16 80 71 55 70 40 55 58.2 Walker Industries - Atlas Landfill 80 135 76 110 114 99 119 103.6 Waste Management Solutions - Twin Creeks 206 250 194 229 178 214 152 193.4 Waste Management Solutions - Petrolia Landfill 217 280 225 260 200 245 188 223.6 Progressive Waste Solutions - Ridge Landfill 231 300 238 300 222 260 192 242.4 Waste Services Inc. - Navan Road Landfill 531 420 544 480 540 500 530 518.8

4 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

LaFleche - Eastern Landfill 525 450 575 470 526 483 600 530.8 Republic Services - Carleton Farms Landfill 317 428 370 410 370 390 330 374 Modern Corporation - Modern Landfill 80 136 126 120 130 101 122 119.8 Source: RIAS Inc. estimates from city centres using Google Maps

4 Economic Impacts

4.1 Economic Impacts of the SCRF Site – Current Configuration

Based on the historical fill rate of 559,000 tonnes per year, the SCRF site generates $28.7 million in economic activity in the Hamilton area, adding $17.9 million in GDP, 51 jobs and almost $2.6 million in wages for local workers. Average annual taxes, fees and royalties amount to more than $2 million.

Over the remaining lifespan of the current approved capacity, the SCRF site will generate between $94 million and $104 million in total economic activity in the Hamilton area, between $59 million and $65 million in GDP, and 164 to 190 jobs for local workers, earning a total of $8.4 million to $9.6 million in wages. Total taxes, fees and royalties paid by the SCRF site locally will amount to $6.2 million to $7.3 million.

Table 5: Hamilton and Area Regional Economic Impacts - Current SCRF Configuration Average Annual PV Impact Over the Remaining Lifespan Impact of the SCRF site Fill rate (tonnes/yr): 559,000 600,000 700,000 750,000 Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced) Total Economic Activity $28,737 $104,477 $94,436 $101,182 GDP $17,943 $65,235 $58,966 $63,178 Jobs (Total FTEs person years) 51 190 164 173 Labour Income $2,587 $9,595 $8,351 $8,836 Taxes and Fees

Property Taxes $423 $1,434 $1,111 $1,111 Heritage Green Community Trust $559 $2032 $1,837 $1,968 City Royalties $559 $2,032 $1,837 $1,968 Sewer Discharge $536 $1,815 $1,406 $1,406 Total taxes, fees and royalties $2,077 $7,314 $6,191 $6,454 Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate

Table 6 shows the overall impacts of the current approved capacity of the SCRF site on the Ontario economy. Based on the historical fill rate of 559,000 tonnes/year, the SCRF site generates over $35 million in economic activity in Ontario, adds more than $21 million in GDP, creates 89 jobs and $4.6 million in wages for workers.

5 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

Table 6: Ontario-wide Economic Impacts - Current SCRF Configuration Average Annual PV Impact Over the Remaining Lifespan Impact of the SCRF site Fill rate (tonnes/yr): 559,000 600,000 700,000 750,000 Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced) Total Economic Activity $35,473 $128,969 $116,575 $124,902 GDP $21,605 $78,547 $70,998 $76,070 Jobs (Total FTEs person years) 89 329 289 307 Labour Income $4,651 $17,099 $15,133 $16,102 Taxes

Income Taxes – Ontario $443 $1,630 $1,443 $1,535 Corporate Taxes – Ontario $195 $710 $641 $687 Total taxes $639 $2,340 $2,084 $2,222 Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate

Over its remaining lifespan, the SCRF site will generate between $117 million and $129 million in total economic activity in Ontario, between $71 million and $79 million in GDP, and 289 to 329 jobs for Ontario workers, earning a total of $15 million to $17 million in wages. Total personal and corporate income taxes paid to the Ontario government is estimated to amount to between $2 million and $2.3 million.

4.2 Economic Impacts of the SCRF Site – With Re-configuration

Table 7 shows the economic impacts, taxes and fees in the Hamilton area for the SCRF site with the proposed additional capacity. Values are expressed in present value over the remaining lifespan of the facility with the proposed additional capacity at various fill rates.

Total economic activity generated in the Hamilton area by the site is expected to range from $349 million to $372 million, with GDP from $218 million to $232 million. Total jobs created in the Hamilton area is estimated to be between 662 and 671, earning wages of around $33.5 million. Total taxes, fees and royalties paid would be between $23.7 and $24.5 million.

Table 7: Hamilton and Area Regional Economic Impacts ($000) PV Impact of the Re-configured SCRF Site Fill rate (tonnes/yr): 600,000 700,000 750,000 Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced) Total Economic Activity $349,464 $364,277 $371,980 GDP $218,204 $227,453 $232,263 Jobs (Total FTEs person years) 671 665 662 Labour Income $33,465 $33,483 $33,513 Taxes and Fees Property Taxes $4,798 $4,287 $4,085 Heritage Green Community Trust $6,798 $7,086 $7,236

6 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

City Royalties $6,798 $7,086 $7,236

Sewer Discharge $6,071 $5,424 $5,169 Total taxes, fees and royalties $24,464 $23,883 $23,727 Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate

Ontario-wide impacts are shown in Table 8. Total economic activity generated across Ontario by increasing the capacity at the site would be from $431 million to $459 million, with GDP from $263 million to about $280 million.

Table 8: Ontario-wide Economic Impacts ($000) PV Impact of the Re-configured SCRF Site Fill rate (tonnes/yr): 600,000 700,000 750,000 Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced) Total Economic Activity $431,388 $449,674 $459,182 GDP $262,731 $273,867 $279,658 Jobs (Total FTEs person years) 1,134 1,148 1,155 Labour Income $58,563 $59,645 $60,228 Taxes

Income Taxes – Ontario $5,583 $5,686 $5,742 Corporate Taxes – Ontario $2,374 $2,474 $2,526 Total taxes $7,957 $8,160 $8,286 Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate

Total number of jobs created in Ontario is estimated to be between 1,134 and 1,155, earning wages of $58.6 million to $60.2 million. Total personal and corporate income taxes paid to the Ontario government would be between $8 million and $8.3 million.

5 Assessment of Alternative Sites

5.1 Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites

This section contains an assessment of the economic and environmental costs for Ontario if the SCRF site does not receive approval for increasing the total capacity for post-diversion solid, non- hazardous industrial residual materials. The analysis is based on the resulting cost impacts for SCRF’s current customers having to transport their wastes to alternative sites in Ontario, Michigan or New York, using the maximum annual fill-rate scenario of 750,000 tonnes/year for the SCRF site.

The analysis considered the following potential alternative sites: • Walker Industries - Atlas Landfill (Welland, ON)* • Waste Management Solutions - Twin Creeks Landfill (Warwick, ON) • Waste Management Solutions - Petrolia Landfill (Petrolia, ON)* • Progressive Waste Solutions - Ridge Landfill (Blenheim, ON)

7 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

• Waste Services Inc. - Navan Road Landfill (Ottawa, ON) • LaFleche - Eastern Landfill (Moose Creek, ON) • Republic Services - Carleton Farms Landfill (New Boston, MI)* • Modern Corporation - Modern Landfill (Model City, NY)*

Incremental costs to current SCRF customers were estimated by calculating the additional transportation costs based on distance (midpoint of each city from where waste materials were being transported by each customer for each alternative site, less the current distance to the SCRF site), multiplied by the cost per km/tonne for each site, plus the disposal costs per tonne (these costs are shown in Table 3 above).

While economic impact estimates were derived for each potential alternative site, our best and worst case scenarios in Tables 9 through 13 consider only those sites that are viable alternatives over the 2019-2028 period. The Atlas and Petrolia landfill sites were excluded, since they are expected to reach full capacity within a few years. The Carleton Farms and Modern landfill sites were also excluded, due to strong political opposition in the U.S. to exports of waste materials from Ontario. Exporting waste to the US is also subject to greater uncertainty due to fluctuations in the value of the Canadian dollar, fuel prices, and the potential for border closures to Canadian waste due to security or health concerns.

Table 9 summarizes the best case (lowest cost alternative site) and worst case (highest cost alternative site) cost impacts, and the resulting impacts of these costs on economic activity, GDP, jobs, labour income and taxes in Ontario.

Table 9: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on All Sectors ($000) Economic Impacts of Higher Economic Impacts of Higher Costs Costs (annual) (PV from 2019-2028) Best Case Worst Case Best Case Worst Case

Increased Costs $4,845 $17,460 $27,778 $100,104 Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced) Total Economic Activity -$8,360 -$30,126 -$47,929 -$172,724 GDP -$4,008 -$14,445 -$22,982 -$82,821 Jobs (Total FTEs person-years) -43 -153 -244 -880 Labour Income -$2,565 -$9,245 -$14,708 -$53,003 Impacts on Taxes Income taxes – Ontario -$245 -$881 -$1,402 -$5,053 Corporate taxes – Ontario -$35 -$166 -$203 -$950 Total taxes -$280 -$1,047 -$1,605 -$6,003 Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate

8 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

The economic impacts of these increased costs are considerable. Economic activity would fall by $8.3 million to $30 million per year, or a total of $48 million to $173 million over the period 2019 to 2028. Value added to the Ontario economy would fall by $4 million to $14 million per year, or $23 million to almost $83 million in present value terms. Forty-three (43) to 153 fewer jobs would be created annually, or between 244 and 880 jobs over the 2019 to 2028 period. Wages earned by Ontario workers would be $2.6 million to $9.2 less each year, or a total of $14.7 to $53 million less to 2028.

Tables 10 through 13 provide a breakdown of the economic impacts for each of the four principal sectors of the Ontario economy that would be affected: Non-residential construction, waste management and remediation services, steel manufacturers, and petroleum refining operations.

Table 10: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Non-Residential Construction ($000) Economic Impacts of Higher Economic Impacts of Higher Costs Costs (annual) (PV from 2019-2028) Best Case Worst Case Best Case Worst Case

Increased Costs $2,326 $8,381 $13,333 $48,050 Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced) Total Economic Activity -$4,238 -$15,273 -$24,299 -$87,565 GDP ($ 000s) -$2,160 -$7,785 -$12,385 -$44,632 Jobs (Total FTEs person-years) -25 -92 -$146 -$526 Labour Income -$1,525 -$5,496 -$8,743 -$31,508 Impacts on Taxes Income taxes – Ontario -$145 -$524 -$834 -$3,004 Corporate taxes – Ontario -$13 -$84 -$73 -$482 Total taxes -$158 -$608 -$907 -$3.486 Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate

Table 11: Cost Impacts of Alternative Sites on Waste Management and Remediation Services ($000) Economic Impacts of Higher Economic Impacts of Higher Costs Costs (annual) (PV from 2019-2028) Best Case Worst Case Best Case Worst Case

Increased Costs $1,211 $4,365 $6,944 $25,026 Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced) Total Economic Activity -$1,953 -$7,038 -$11,197 -$40,352 GDP -$1,189 -$4,287 -$6,820 -$24,576 Jobs (Total FTEs person-years) -10 -37 -59 -213 Labour Income -$552 -$1,989 -$3,164 -$11,404 Impacts on Taxes Income taxes – Ontario -$53 -$190 -$302 -$1,087 Corporate taxes – Ontario -$11 -$39 -$62 -$222 Total taxes -$64 -$229 -$364 -$1,309 Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate

9 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

Table 12: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Steel Manufacturing ($000) Economic Impacts of Higher Economic Impacts of Higher Costs Costs (annual) (PV from 2019-2028) Best Case Worst Case Best Case Worst Case Increased Costs -$1,211 -$4,365 -$6,944 -$25,026 Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced)

Total Economic Activity -$2,042 -$7,360 -$11,709 -$42,196 GDP -$636 -$2,294 -$3,649 -$13,151 Jobs (Total FTEs person-years) -7 -24 -38 -138 Labour Income -$479 -$1,725 -$2,744 -$9,889 Impacts on Taxes

Income taxes – Ontario -$46 -$164 -$262 -$943 Corporate taxes – Ontario -$11 -$40 -$64 -$232 Total taxes -$57 -$204 -$326 -$1,175 Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate

Table 13: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Petroleum Refining ($000) Economic Impacts of Higher Economic Impacts of Higher Costs Costs (annual) (PV from 2019-2028) Best Case Worst Case Best Case Worst Case

Increased Costs $97 $349 $556 $2,002 Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced) Total Economic Activity -$126 -$455 -$724 -$2,610 GDP -$22 -$81 -$128 -$462 Jobs (Total FTEs person-years) 0 0 -1 -3 Labour Income -$10 -$35 -$56 -$203 Impacts on Taxes Income taxes – Ontario -$1 -$3 -$5 -$19 Corporate taxes – Ontario -$1 -$3 -$4 -$14 Total taxes -$2 -$6 -$9 -$33 Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate

5.2 Environmental Impacts of Alternative Sites

Increased GHGs The impacts from increased Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions have been estimated for each alternative site using distances (from Table 4) and tonnes of materials transported to estimate total km-tonnes for each site. These parameters were entered into the GHGenius model to estimate the net increase in GHG emissions, as shown in Table 14 below.

10 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

Table 14: Increases in GHGs for Transportation of Wastes to Alternative Sites

Total Hamilton Toronto and Scarborough Nanticoke Mississauga Guelph Oakville Brantford Other Cities and Towns

GHGs from transportation of waste to SCRF site (tonnes of CO2 equivalent) SCRF 5,884 1,088 2,553 345 206 233 111 137 1,211 Percentage increase in GHG from transportation of waste to alternative sites Walker Industries - Atlas Landfill 132% 400% 69% 7% 100% 63% 148% 116% 78% Waste Management Solutions - 399% 1188% 213% 173% 316% 154% 435% 176% 232% Twin Creeks Waste Management Solutions - 448% 1256% 250% 217% 373% 186% 513% 242% 284% Petrolia Landfill Progressive Waste Solutions - 487% 1344% 275% 235% 445% 217% 550% 249% 316% Ridge Landfill Waste Services Inc. - Navan Road 1077% 3219% 426% 666% 773% 671% 1150% 864% 791% Landfill LaFleche - Eastern Landfill 1094% 3181% 463% 710% 755% 651% 1108% 991% 812% Republic Services - Carleton Farms 741% 1881% 435% 421% 645% 429% 875% 500% 543% Landfill Modern Corporation - Modern 144% 400% 70% 77% 118% 86% 153% 122% 106% Landfill Source: GHGenius model, version 5.0 for Ontario

Table 15 provides the range of annual and total increased GHG’s for the viable alternative sites.

Table 15: Best and Worst Case Environmental Impacts of Alternative Sites GHG Impacts Total GHG Impacts (annual) (2019-2028) Best Case Worst Case Best Case Worst Case

Increased GHGs (tonnes of CO2) 23,491 64,374 234,910 643,740 Source: GHGenius model, version 5.0 for Ontario.

Increases in Other Pollutants Impacts on other pollutants were also examined using the GHGenius model, specifically increases in NOx, VOC-Ozone, SOx, PM2.5, and CFCs & HFCs. While the volumes of these pollutants related to the diversion of waste materials from SCRF site to other sites are small, the resulting increases in percentage terms for these pollutants are large – ranging from an increase of 400% to over 1000%, depending on the alternative site.

11 Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility January 2017

6 Conclusions

Benefits of the Current SCRF Operations The current SCRF site generates the following economic benefits for the Hamilton area: • $28.7 million per year in total economic activity • $17.9 million per year in value-added (GDP) • 51 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 the SCRF facility

At the provincial level, the SCRF site generates the following economic benefits for Ontario: • $35.5 million per year in total economic activity • $21.6 million per year in value-added (GDP) • 89 jobs created, earning a total of $4.6 million per year in wages • $639,000 in personal income and corporate taxes paid to the Ontario government

Benefits of the Proposed Increase in Total Approved Capacity at the SCRF Site If the SCRF site increases the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials, the following total economic benefits for the Hamilton area are expected (in present value terms): • $349 to $372 million in total economic activity • $218 to $232 million in value added to the local economy • 662 to 671 jobs created, earning about $33.5 million in wages • $21.8 to $23.9 million in taxes, fees and royalties paid to local government.

Overall benefits to Ontario are expected to be: • $431 to $459 million in total economic activity • $262 to $280 million in value added to the local economy • 1,134 to 1,155 jobs created, earning between $58.5 and $60.2 million in wages • $7.96 to $8.29 million in personal income and corporate taxes paid to the Ontario government

Increasing the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials at the SCRF site would avoid considerable cost increases for customers of the current SCRF site, ranging from $4.8 to $17.5 million. It would also avoid increased GHG emissions, ranging from about 23,500 to 64,000 tonnes per year.

12 Supporting Document #2

Previous EA Documentation/Correspondence on Cultural Heritage

GHD | Proposed Terms of Reference | 11102771 (16)