Proposed County of Simcoe Landfill Site (Site 41)
In February 2004, the ECO received an application under the Environmental Bill of Rights requesting that the Ministry of the Environment review the certificate of approval (C of A) – the operating permit – for a proposed landfill site in Simcoe County.
The planned landfill, also known as “Site 41,” is located near the Town of Midland. The proposal involves landfilling on 21 hectares of land within a total site area of 60 hectares. The applicants have questioned the appropriateness of developing Site 41 for two main reasons. First, the applicants noted numerous technical issues raised in 2003 by the Ministry of the Environment and several independent technical experts relating to the county’s proposed detailed design and operation parameters for the landfill. Second, because of impending changes to Ontario law and policy related to source water protection, the applicants question whether it is prudent to consider the landfill’s development. MOE declined to undertake the review. The ECO disagrees with that decision.
In 1979, a landfill search began for the North Simcoe area that led eventually to the selection of Site 41. Part of that search involved investigating the expansion of an existing landfill site (called the Pauze landfill). But the Pauze site was rejected because studies showed that it was polluting the source of drinking water for the nearby Village of Perkinsfield. In fact, Perkinsfield was provided with piped water due to the groundwater contamination. The Pauze landfill is located in the vicinity of Site 41, contributing to the ongoing opposition to Site 41.
Following an environmental assessment (EA) approval process, a public hearing about Site 41 was held under the Consolidated Hearings Act. In November 1989 the hearing board decided not to approve the landfill site, but Cabinet overturned that decision in June 1990 and required the hearing to resume. Following resumption of the hearing process, the board approved Site 41 in 1995 and issued specific conditions in 1996. Two other legal challenges made after the board’s approval ruling were not successful. As a result, MOE issued a C of A for Site 41 in April 1998, contingent on the ministry’s satisfaction with an array of technical provisions related to environmental protection that the county would submit in the future. MOE would also have to issue several other environmental permits for landfill development – stormwater management and site dewatering to allow for landfill construction.
In January 2003, the County of Simcoe provided MOE with more information about the proposed landfill site’s design and operation, and in March 2003, MOE responded with comments on gull management at the site. The Huronia Airport is only 6.5 km away from Site 41, and Transport Canada’s guideline recommends a distance of 8 km in order to minimize the human safety risk of gulls colliding with aircraft.
In June 2003, MOE provided the county with a list of 81 additional comments on the remainder of its January 2003 submission. The ministry was concerned about the need for more assessment of the potential impacts of the landfill on a nearby creek. MOE also urged the county to defer plans to place waste in the northwest corner of the proposed landfilling area until more data were available, or to eliminate that part of the site from the fill area. The ministry was also concerned about the potential impact of off-site pumping of groundwater on the performance of Site 41’s leachate collection system. The landfill’s design relies on pressure (called an “upward gradient”) from groundwater below the proposed site to contain leachate, the contaminated liquid produced by a landfill.
Also in 2003, a peer review by technical experts prepared for local concerned citizens and Tiny Township, the host municipality, identified numerous issues relating to groundwater and surface water protection. While these reviewers noted that the landfill site could be developed if those concerns were addressed, the review comments pointed to the sensitive nature of the proposed site: Site 41’s characteristics would “require that more than usual precautions” be “undertaken to design, construct and operate the Site in accordance with stated requirements.” Concerns were also expressed with the completeness of the information submitted for review: the “proposed detailed design requirements for the construction of the landfill are inadequate to ensure the appropriate environmental and engineering control during the active life of the landfill.” The applicants included a copy of both MOE and peer review comments as part of the EBR application for review.
In declining the applicants’ request for a review, MOE indicated that the county had responded to many issues the ministry raised in 2003. However, MOE acknowledged that follow-up reports remain outstanding on the following issues: gull management, surface water discharge from landfill construction activities, and the capacity of local wastewater facilities to accept leachate. The ECO notes that these matters remain unresolved six years after the C of A established the information requirements.
Several key changes to Ontario’s regulatory framework related to source water protection remain on the horizon and partially formed the basis of the applicants’ request for review. In February 2004, MOE released a draft policy paper on source water protection to implement recommendations made by Justice O’Connor in the Report of the Walkerton Inquiry. That paper outlines the province’s intent to develop source water protection legislation so that watersheds across Ontario have plans in place to protect that water. In future, sound water management decisions will be based on an understanding of the relationship between water quality, water use, and conditions within the watershed, and effective protection programs will be built on accurate and representative assessments of threats to the water source. The ministry also proposes to strengthen its rules for approval of watertakings by the end of 2004. The ECO notes that these new rules could have a bearing on the plans to dewater the site, necessary for the construction of the landfill.
In denying the application, MOE told the applicants that a review of the C of A was already under way and that undertaking the review would create a duplicate exercise. MOE’s narrow view is unfortunate. The ministry’s consideration of the landfill’s design and operation focuses on specific technical factors. As well, MOE’s intention to review the C of A in light of existing policies, Acts and regulations does not address the applicants’ request that MOE broadly consider the merit of developing Site 41 in light of the impending changes to Ontario’s regulatory framework on source protection. The approach to source protection being considered by MOE was not part of the ministry’s approach to watershed management in the mid-1990s when the hearing board issued its approval for Site 41, or in 1998, when MOE issued the C of A. Thus, the broader review requested by the applicant would not constitute a duplicate exercise.
The ministry’s denial of the application also stated that MOE consulted with the public, especially the local community, on all ministry approvals related to the North Simcoe Landfill Site 41, and that MOE would continue to involve the public in the approvals process. The ministry also noted that the public participated in the process to select the landfill site, and in the subsequent hearing.
ECO Comment
The ECO observes that many of the technical details related to the landfill’s design and operation were not available during the landfill siting process or at the hearing. Due to an exception found in s. 32 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, MOE is not required to post proposal notices for these types of Cs of A, nor to explain publicly how it has addressed any citizen concerns (see pages 52-59 of this annual report for more detail). For information, the public must rely on any forums organized municipally or by the community monitoring committee – the “CMC,” which is made up of several municipal representatives and citizens living within three kilometres of Site 41.
As a related problem, the CMC alleges it was kept in the dark about the County of Simcoe’s plans to seek approval for a stormwater management system at Site 41. The county did not provide the CMC with copies of the application documents sent to MOE in April 2003, or with copies of correspondence between the ministry and the county relating to the application. This communication continued until January 2004, when MOE issued an approval under the Ontario Water Resources Act. A Registry notice would have provided transparency and an opportunity for public input into another environmentally significant aspect of the proposed landfill site.
The ECO believes that a broad review of the Site 41 C of A was warranted to increase government accountability for environmental decision-making on this highly contentious proposal. It would have been appropriate for the Ministry of the Environment to evaluate the certificate of approval in light of the province’s intention to strengthen source water protection requirements.
| This is an article from the 2003/04 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2004. "Proposed County of Simcoe Landfill Site (Site 41)." Choosing our Legacy, ECO Annual Report, 2003-04. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 150-153.
