Existing Landfill Facility

Transcription

1 Existing Landfill Facility

2 Alternative 1 Conceptual Design Vertical expansion over the existing landfill area (except Subcells 1, 2 and 3 of Cell 18). Top of the waste limited to the height of existing perimeter berms (approx. 211 m AMSL). Engineered final cover system, approximately 1.5 m thick. Landfill disposal area of 55.6 ha (555,691 m 2 ). Waste disposal capacity approx. 3.6 million m 3. Existing entrance to the facility will be maintained. Existing waste processing systems to be maintained as long as possible. Maintain 153 m buffer zone around perimeter of landfill. Perimeter hydraulic control trench and hydraulic control layer (for the ongoing collection of leachate). Leachate will be incinerated on-site or disposed off-site. Surface water management includes: o Ditching designed to accommodate runoff from 1:25 year rain event; o Detention of runoff for the 1:100 year storm; and o Surface water treatment at a maximum rate of 4.5 million litres per day. Main changes to stormwater and process water systems include: o West surface water pond relocated to west buffer to accommodate the new south process water pond; o South process water pond relocated to west surface water pond to accommodate installation of hydraulic control trench and final cover; o Stormwater drainage will be split at the northeast corner to reduce pumping requirements; o East surface water pond will be reduced in size to accommodate waste disposal; and o Perimeter ditches will provide water storage requirements. Monitoring program will be consistent with the current monitoring program and augmented as required. Cross-section of Alternative 1

3 Alternative 1 Conceptual Design

4 Alternative 2 Conceptual Design New shallow entombed landfill south of the existing Lambton Facility. Top of waste m AMSL (peak) with 3% top slope. Final cover 5.1 m native compacted clay with a vegetation layer on top. Landfill disposal area of 38.7 ha within total site area of ha. Waste disposal capacity approx. 3.6 million m m buffer zones on east, west, and south sides. Entrance to the existing facility will be utilized and an on-site access road will be constructed through the woodlot. Maintain existing waste processing and water management systems at the existing Lambton Facility. Existing Lambton Landfill closed as per approved closure plan. Perimeter landscaped screening berms approx. 6 m high with 3:1 side slopes. Excavation base of 187 m AMSL (13 m below ground surface). Clay key at the perimeter of the cell a minimum of 5.1 m deep and 5 m wide, constructed of re-compacted clay from the site. Stormwater management: o Ditching designed to accommodate at a minimum runoff from 1:25 year rain event; o Detention of runoff for the 1:100 year storm (at a minimum); o Surface water treatment at a rate of 2 million litres per day or use the existing Lambton Facility plant that has an approved rate of 4.5 million litres per day; and o Surface water management pond at south end. Process water transferred from pond via forcemain to Lambton Facility for disposal. Leachate transferred from covered pond to Lambton Facility incinerator by forcemain. Monitoring program consistent with Lambton Facility monitoring program and augmented as required. Cross-section of Alternative 2

5 Alternative 2 Conceptual Design

6 Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Process As part of the EA, a Net Effects Analysis was carried out for Alternative 1 and 2 consisting of the following: A Comparative Evaluation was then conducted by each discipline consisting of the following: 1. Identify the predicted net effect(s) associated with each alternative for each indicator and assign a preference rating (i.e., Preferred, Not Preferred, No Substantial Difference); and 2. Rate each alternative at the criteria level (i.e., Preferred, Not Preferred, No Substantial Difference) based on the identified preference rating for each indicator. PeopleandTechnologyCreatingaBetterEnvironment

7 Technical Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation The Net Effects and Comparative Evaluation for the Technical Environment were conducted using the following criteria and indicators: Criteria Facility Characteristics Indicators Complexity of site infrastructure changes. Complexity of engineered components, including their demonstrated or predicted effectiveness, longevity, maintenance, and/or replacement requirements. Operational flexibility. Interaction and integration with existing site infrastructure. Summary of the Net Effects Analysis: Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Low overall complexity of site infrastructure and overall complexity of engineered components given appropriate construction techniques, oversights and operation monitoring. Operational flexibility is maximized. High interaction and integration with existing site infrastructure. Low overall complexity of site infrastructure and overall complexity of engineered components given appropriate construction techniques, oversights and operation monitoring. Operational flexibility is maximized. Low level of interaction and integration with the existing site infrastructure. Summary of the Comparative Evaluation: Alternative 1 is preferred as there is no substantial difference for complexity of site infrastructure changes, complexity of engineered components, and operational flexibility and Alternative 1 is preferred over Alternative 2 with respect to interaction and integration with existing site infrastructure.

8 Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Regional & Local Geology Geology within the Regional and Local Study Areas is relatively uniform, consisting of a thick sequence of clay and silt dominated sediment deposited in and adjacent to proglacial lakes during the Late Wisconsinan substage of the Quaternary. The overburden is about 20 m thick in the Petrolia area, 35 to 40 m thick in the general vicinity of the Facility property and up to 70 m thick near the St. Clair River. PeopleandTechnologyCreatingaBetterEnvironment

9 Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Natural Resources SUMMARY OF HOUSEHOLD WATER USE GROUNDWATER SUPPLY WELLS OIL & GAS WELLS Table 8.1 from Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report (RWDI, 2014)

10 Geology and Hydrogeology Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation The Net Effects and Comparative Evaluation for the Geology and Hydrogeology were conducted using the following criteria and indicators: Criteria Indicators Predicted effect of landfill development on groundwater quantity on-site and off-site. Groundwater Quantity The evaluation of this indicator involves an initial assessment of the effect of the landfill design on the hydraulic gradients that develop. The effect is defined as the volume of leachate that is produced from infiltration through the landfill cover, and subsequently moves outward from the landfill through the shallow or deeper groundwater. Groundwater Quality Predicted effect of contaminant movement on groundwater quality on-site and off-site. The analysis involves estimating the potential mass release of chloride from the landfill expressed in kg/year to shallow and deep groundwater. Key Design Considerations and Assumptions: Alternative 1 Includes effects from existing Cell 18, Sub-cell 1&2, and ongoing extraction of groundwater from Cell 18, Sub-cell 3. Area receiving waste will be increased over the existing landfill area by approximately 4.65 ha as a result of infilling of existing open area between/adjacent to Existing Landfill. Engineered cover combined with leachate collection system (LCS) will reduce the current leachate level in the waste. Results in reduction in hydraulic gradients outward from landfill. Alternative 2 Includes effects from full Existing Landfill. Area receiving waste will be increased over the existing landfill area by approximately 38.7 ha. The design does not incorporate engineered features (i.e., engineered cover system and LCS).

11 Geology and Hydrogeology Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Summary of the Geology and Hydrogeology Net Effects Analysis: Alternative 1: Will result in a net decrease in the volume of leachate and the chloride mass loading to surface water on-site due to the installation of an engineered cover over several landfill cells and sub-cells, and the installation of a perimeter leachate collection system. Engineered cover will reduce the outward hydraulic gradient that currently exists within portions of the Existing Landfill and will also result in a decrease in volume of leachate that would move out through the excavation sidewalls and base of the landfill and the chloride mass loading to surface water and the Interface Aquifer. Engineered cover and leachate collection systems will need to be operated and maintained for the active contaminating life span of the landfill. Alternative 2: Does not incorporate an engineered cover or leachate collection system. Expected leachate mound that will be produced in the landfill will induce the outward movement of leachate/waste constituents. Groundwater flow and chloride impact could be reduced by a change in the design of the landfill such that it is more consistent with the initial entombment concept or an engineered cover system could be applied to reduce infiltration. However, the impacts would still be greater than those of Alternative 1 given that the overall size of the area to receive the waste at closure will be substantially larger. Summary of the Comparative Evaluation: Alternative 1 is preferred given that it will have less impact on the quantity and quality of groundwater.

12 Surface Water Existing Conditions

13 Surface Water Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation The Net Effects and Comparative Evaluation for the Surface Water were conducted using the following criteria and indicators: Criteria Surface Water Quality Indicators Assessment of on-site and off-site surface water quality including any predicted impact from upward diffusion of chemicals from the waste. Surface Water Quantity Predicted water flows for existing and proposed site conditions.

14 Surface Water Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Summary of the Surface Water Quantity Net Effects Analysis: Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Quantity: Will result in an improvement in surface water quantity volume and peak flow over the future baseline condition for the north site outlet and will result in similar surface water quantity volume and peak flow as the future baseline condition for the south site outlet. Quality: Maximum mass discharge of chloride (used as a surrogate parameter for assessing relative impact) from groundwater to surface water is expected to decline in comparison to anticipated loadings under future baseline conditions. Quantity: Includes an increase in site footprint requiring additional surface water quantity control infrastructure. Alternative 2 will result in no change in surface water quantity volume and peak flow over the future baseline condition for the north site outlet and will result in a notable increase in surface water quantity volume over the future baseline condition for the south site outlet. Peak flow rate at the south site outlet is improved through the implementation of the south surface water reservoir. Quality: Maximum mass discharge of chloride from groundwater to surface water is expected to increase significantly in comparison to anticipated loadings under future baseline conditions. Increased chloride loadings under Alternative 2 may result in an exceedance of Canadian Councils of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines for the long term protection of aquatic life. Summary of the Comparative Evaluation: From a surface water quantity perspective, Alternative 1 is preferred due to the favourable surface water quantity volume and peak flow rates at the north and south site outlet. Alternative 2 is not preferred due to the increase in surface water runoff volume released at the south site outlet. Alternative 2 also requires the implementation of additional surface water quantity control infrastructure. From a surface water quality perspective Alternative 1 is preferred due to the smaller overall waste footprint and engineered control features (i.e., leachate collection system design), which will result in a lesser impact from the landfill to surface water receptors.

15 Alternative1 Alternative2

16 Natural Environment Aquatic

17 Natural Environment Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation The Net Effects and Comparative Evaluation for the Natural Environment were conducted using the following criteria and indicators: Criteria Terrestrial Ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystems Indicators Predicted impact on vegetation communities due to landfill footprint, construction and operations onsite. Predicted impact on Wildlife Habitats due to landfill footprint, construction and operations on-site. Predicted impact on amphibian habitat and communities due to landfill footprint, construction and operations. Presence of known or identified Species at Risk and their habitats and the predicted impact of the proposed footprint, construction and operations. Predicted impact on aquatic habitat due to landfill footprint, construction and operations on-site. Predicted impact on fisheries due to construction and operations on-site. Presence of known or identified Species at Risk and their habitats and the predicted impact of the proposed footprint, construction and operation onsite.

18 Natural Environment Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Summary of the Terrestrial Net Effects Analysis: Alternative 1: Alternative 2: With compensation plantings, no net loss of significant vegetation communities anticipated; however, there will be a longer term loss of mature swamp and mature forest as these areas will take many decades to mature. Net loss of 0.77 ha of other, less significant vegetation from the Southwest Woodlot; however, effects are considered minor due to the lower quality of the vegetation. No net loss of SWH or amphibian breeding locations. New forest edge will grow in naturally after several years minimizing the edge effects. Wildlife avoidance along forest edge of Southeast Woodlot. No net effects on Butternuts anticipated with the compensation planting and the survival of the seedlings. With compensation plantings, no net loss of significant vegetation communities anticipated; however, there will be a longer term loss of mature forest as these areas will take many decades to mature. Net loss of 1.97 ha of other, less significant vegetation; however, effects are considered minor due to the lower quality of the vegetation. No net loss of SWH or amphibian breeding locations. New forest edge will grow in naturally after several years minimizing the edge effects. Wildlife avoidance along forest edge of South Woodlot and the Southwest Woodlot. Barriers in wildlife movement due to chain-link fence.

19 Natural Environment Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Summary of the Aquatic Net Effects Analysis: Aquatic ecosystems are anticipated to be primarily influenced under either Alternative design by changes in sedimentation, changes in flow regime and changes in surface water quality. Changes in sedimentation and changes in flow are anticipated to be controlled or mitigated through the operation of the Surface Water Treatment Plant. Surface water quality conditions contribute to the overall suitability of fish habitat for fish use. Based on the findings of the hydrogeology & geology and surface water net effects analysis and comparative evaluation reports, the following net effects to surface water quality are anticipated. Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Maximum mass discharge of chloride (used as a surrogate parameter for assessing relative impact) from groundwater to surface water is expected to decline in comparison to anticipated loadings under future baseline conditions which will result in no net effects to fish within the Equalization Reservoir and/or to fish or fish habitat off-site within the downstream receivers. Maximum mass discharge of chloride from groundwater to surface water is expected to increase significantly in comparison to anticipated loadings under future baseline conditions which likely impact the suitability of fish habitat for fish use off-site within the downstream receivers. Summary of the Comparative Evaluation of the Natural Environment: Alternative 2 is slightly preferred from a terrestrial ecosystem perspective due to a lesser amount of significant forest vegetation removal and no net effects on Species at Risk. Alternative 1 is preferred from an aquatic ecosystems perspective due to the overall smaller waste footprint, one point discharge for off-site drainage and lesser potential for flooding implications and the lower projected mass discharge of chloride from groundwater to surface water. Overall, Alternative 1 is preferred in terms of effects on the natural environment.

20 Air Quality and Odour Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation The Net Effects and Comparative Evaluation for Air Quality and Odour were conducted using the following criteria and indicators: Criteria Air Emissions Indicators Predicted off-site point of impingement concentrations (g/m 3 ) of indicator compounds. Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses/farms, institutions). Odour Predicted off-site odour concentrations (g/m 3 and odour units). Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses/farms, institutions). Covered Leachate Ponds

21 Air Quality and Odour Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Summary of the Net Effects Analysis: Alternative 1: Alternative 1 has slightly higher potential off-site point of impingement (POI) concentrations than Alternative 2; however, the difference is not considered substantial. o All potential off-site air quality impacts from the Facility comply with the MOE health and risk based Air Quality Standards. The total number of receptors potentially affected by off-site POI concentrations is the same for each Alternative. o Receptors closest to the proposed landfill are already in the vicinity of the existing landfill and the net change in effects is not considered significant. Under normal operations, there are no off-site odour impacts from the Facility; however, under an upset scenario, potential off-site odour concentrations would be the same for either Alternative. Alternative 2: All potential off-site air quality impacts from the Facility comply with the MOE health and risk based Air Quality Standards. Receptors closest to the proposed landfill are not currently in the vicinity of the existing landfill, and the net change in effects at these receptors is more significant than the net change for Alternative 1. Summary of the Comparative Analysis: Potential fugitive dust emissions from the short-term construction activities for each Alternative were considered to provide further insight into which Alternative is preferred. o Alternative 2 would require further mitigation measures than Alternative 1; therefore, when considering short-term construction activities, Alternative 1 is the preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 presents a greater risk of an upset scenario regarding odour concentrations related to the leachate. Overall, Alternative 1 is preferred as it would have lower construction effects and a lower risk of an upset scenario regarding odour concentrations.

22 Air Quality and Odour Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Alternative1 Alternative2 PeopleandTechnologyCreatingaBetterEnvironment

23 Noise Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation The Net Effects and Comparative Evaluation for Noise were conducted using the following criteria and indicators: Criteria Noise Emissions Indicators Predicted off-site noise level. Number of off-site receptors potentially affected including residential properties, public facilities, businesses, farms and institutions. Summary of the Net Effects Analysis: Alternative 1: All receptors will remain below the MOE noise limits for landfill operations. The off-site environmental noise impact is limited to the 8 residents to the north. The most affected receptor will experience a net increase of 1 dba which is considered acoustically insignificant. Alternative 2: All receptors will remain below the MOE noise limits for landfill operations. The 5 residents to the south of the Study Area will experience a noise increase of more than 10 dba. A greater than 10 dba change in sound is perceived as twice as loud. Summary of the Comparative Evaluation: Alternative 1 is preferred as it provides the lowest noise impact exposure for the majority of the off-site receptors.

24 Noise Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Alternative 1 Alternative 2

25 Socio-Economic Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation The Net Effects and Comparative Evaluation for the Socio-Economic Environment were conducted using the following criteria and indicators: Criteria Economic Social Indicators Opportunities to provide goods or services. Change in municipal tax base resulting from change in land use. The relative number and levels of jobs at the facility, in the community and among suppliers that are created/sustained during construction and operations. The relative dollar values of construction and operations of the project in terms of contribution to the local economy. Displacement of business activities. Effects on Municipal revenues (e.g., fees, service charges) and expenditures (e.g., costs associated with providing services to the site and other responsibilities such as participating in monitoring activities). Existing off-site businesses and numbers of employees within 500, 1,000 and 1,500 m of the landfill site boundary. Presence of known or identified Petroleum Resources or related abandoned infrastructure/wells and the predicted impact of the proposed footprint, construction and operation on-site. Presence of known or identified Aggregate Resources and the predicted impact or impairment of their use due to the proposed footprint, construction and operation on-site. Nuisances caused by weeds due to exposed site area and berms. Existing off-site residents within 500 m of the landfill boundary. Existing off-site residents within 1,000 m of the landfill boundary. Existing off-site residents within 1,500 m of the landfill boundary. Predicted changes in landscapes and views.

26 Socio-Economic Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Summary of the Net Effects Analysis: Alternative 1: Economic: No net effects on the municipal tax base, displacement of business activities, municipal revenues, businesses and employees within the Study Area, petroleum resources or aggregate resources. Some positive net effects on opportunities to provide goods and services, the number and levels of jobs in the community and the dollar value of construction and operation activities. Social: No effects on the use and enjoyment of residences within 1,500 m are anticipated; however, there will be a few locations where the landfill will be visible from off-site due to the lower berm elevation in the vicinity of the site entrances. Alternative 2: Economic: No net effects on the displacement of business activities, municipal revenues, businesses and employees within the Study Area, petroleum resources or aggregate resources. Some positive net effects on the opportunities to provide goods and services, changes in the municipal tax base, the number and levels of jobs in the community, the dollar value of construction and operation activities and municipal revenues. Social: Negative effects identified for all social criteria indicators off-site residences within 500, 1,000 and 1,500 m and predicted changes in landscape and views. Summary of the Comparative Evaluation: Alternative 2 is anticipated to generate slightly more property tax revenue for the Municipality than Alternative 1. For this reason, Alternative 2 is preferred over Alternative 1 with regard to the Economic indicators, although the difference is considered relatively minor. Given that Alternative 1 is preferred in terms of all social indicators and the difference in economic indicators is minor, overall, Alternative 1 is preferred.

27 Agriculture Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation The Net Effects and Comparative Evaluation for Agricultural Resources were conducted using the following criteria and indicators: Criteria Agriculture Resources Indicators Displacement of high quality agricultural lands. Agriculture operational impacts. Particulate (dust) emissions from landfill. Nuisances caused by weeds due to exposed site area and berms. Summary of the Net Effects Analysis: Alternative 1: May require a shift in the southern property boundary by 153 m to be consistent with the buffer requirements of the existing zoning by-law. Results in the displacement of 1.9 ha of Class 2 lands, 9.7 ha of Class 3 lands and the loss of 2.2 ha of Disturbed Lands. Alternative 2: Results in the displacement of 45.0 ha of Class 2 lands, 73.8 ha of Class 3 lands which represent approximately 97.1 % of the Alternative 2 Study Area (the remaining 2.9% comprises Disturbed Lands). Summary of the Comparative Evaluation: Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would have no substantial difference with respect to agricultural operation impacts (i.e. particulate emissions from the landfill and nuisances caused by weeds due to the exposed site area and berms). Alternative 1 is preferred as it would displace less high quality agricultural lands and there is no substantial difference for agricultural operational impacts.

28 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation The Net Effects and Comparative Evaluation for the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage were conducted using the following criteria and indicators: Criteria Archaeological Resources Above Ground Cultural Heritage Resources Indicators Presence of known archaeological resources. Potential effects on archaeological potential. Presence of built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes. Presence of designated (Ontario Heritage Act), commemorated (National Historic Site or historical plaque) inventoried (listed on a municipal heritage register), and identified built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes in the site vicinity. Potential effects on above ground cultural heritage resources. Effects can include direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts can include displacement through removal, while indirect impacts can include disturbance through the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements not in keeping with the surrounding setting.

29 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Summary of the Net Effects Analysis: Alternative 1: No known archaeological resources are present in the Alternative 1 Study Area. Potential net effects on areas with archaeological potential will be avoided or mitigated through conducting a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. No net effects on cultural heritage resources anticipated as the existing entrance to the site will continue to be used thus avoiding the identified cultural heritage resources. Alternative 2: No known archaeological resources are present in the Alternative 2 Study Area. Potential net effects on areas with archaeological potential will be avoided or mitigated through conducting a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. Although Telfer Road has been identified as a cultural heritage roadscape due to its narrow right-of-way and shoulders evocative of 19th century origins, it is not considered a unique resource. It is typical in this part of the County as such, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, effects on the Telfer Road roadscape are not considered significant. Summary of the Comparative Evaluation: Given that there is no substantial difference for each criterion, overall there is no substantial difference between Alternative 1 and 2 in terms of Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources.

30 Comparative Evaluation of the Alternatives In addition to the comparison of the alternatives by Net Effects, the relative rankings of the criteria were used to help identify the Preferred Alternative. These rankings were confirmed as part of the approved Terms of Reference. Environmental Component Criteria Criteria Rank Agriculture Agricultural Resources Very Important Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Atmospheric Environment (Air) Air Emissions Odour Very Important Very Important Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources Geology & Hydrogeology Archaeological Resources Above Ground Cultural Heritage Resources Groundwater Quantity Groundwater Quality Important Important Very Important Very Important No Substantial No Substantial Difference Difference No Substantial No Substantial Difference Difference No Substantial Difference Natural Environment Terrestrial Ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystems Very Important Very Important Atmospheric Environment (Noise) Noise Important Socio-Economic Economic Social Important Very Important Surface Water Surface Water Quality Surface Water Quantity Very Important Very Important Technical Facility Characteristics Very Important THE OVERALL PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IS ALTERNATIVE 1

31 Preferred Alternative Birdseye View of the Existing Site Birdseye View of the Proposed Landfill at Closure

32 Cumulative Effects Assessment Clean Harbors has undertaken a cumulative effects assessment of air quality impacts and other Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). Cumulative effects are effects that are likely to result from the proposed project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out within the foreseeable future. Cumulative Effects Assessment Air Quality Two study areas were identified for the air cumulative effects assessment: o Study Area 1: rectangular area that encloses every source of contaminants and extends 5 km from the existing facility boundary o Study Area 2: the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Community, located 6 km northwest of the existing facility Study Area Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Methodology 1. Review air monitoring data for the existing facility. 2. Model particulate emissions from road dust and the resulting off-site concentrations for the alternatives. 3. Determine metal concentration in the modeled particulate matter for the alternatives. 4. Add the off-site metal concentrations to the road dust results for each alternative. 5. Add the maximum impact of fugitive volatile organic compound emissions from the existing landfill to the modelled impact from other facility sources. 6. Compare the resulting cumulative air quality effects to Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Point of Impingement (POI) limits and Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC). 1. Using the air quality concentrations modeled for Study Area 1, add the maximum concentration of air pollutants from monitoring stations on the shore of the St. Clair River. 2. Compare the resulting cumulative air quality effects to MOE POI limits and Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC). Results All compounds are below their respective POI and AAQC Standards Facility operations are not a significant contributor to emissions within the study area.

33 Cumulative Effects Assessment Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) VECs were identified as groundwater, surface water, terrestrial ecosystem, aquatic ecosystem, traffic and noise. The following steps were undertaken as part of the Cumulative Effects Assessment for the VECs: Assess residual effects Determine whether VECs exhibit measureable or demonstrable residual effects Identify other projects and activities Assess whether the residual effects act in a cumulative fashion with the effects of other existing and future projects and activities Identify cumulative effects Determine if the regional condition for the VECs would measurably change due to the residual project effects in combination with other project or activity effects Evaluate significance of cumulative effects Identify whether the cumulative effect results in a significant adverse effect on relevant VECs in terms of magnitude, duration, extent or permanency Significance Assessment for the Residual Adverse Effects Residual Adverse Project Significance of VEC Affected Effects Phase Residual Effect Reduction in groundwater quality. Operation Groundwater Moderate Adverse Effect (Not Significant) Reduction in surface water quality. Operation Surface Water Moderate Adverse Effect (Not Significant) Some loss of vegetation and Construction/ Terrestrial Ecosystems Negligible Effect wildlife avoidance. Operation (Not Significant) Disruption to aquatic habitat. Operation Aquatic Ecosystems Moderate Adverse Effect (Not Significant) Disruption to local traffic. Construction/ Operation Traffic Negligible Effect (Not Significant) Increased noise levels around the site. Construction/ Operation Noise Negligible Effect (Not Significant) Based on the implementation of mitigation measures, the determination of significance of effects, and the context of this Project in conjunction with other activities, the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse cumulative environmental effects.

34 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Preferred Alternative Environmental Component Technical Geology & Hydrogeology Surface Water Natural Environment Air Quality Noise Socio- Economic Agriculture Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Advantages Site infrastructure and engineered components are standard components for landfills. Operational flexibility maximized. High degree of interaction and integration with existing site infrastructure. Reduced volume of leachate and chloride mass loading to surface water on-site and the Interface Aquifer. Less groundwater will be extracted and managed due to the smaller landfill footprint and the construction of engineered cover and leachate collection system. Reduced volume of impacted water discharging to surface water in future years. Improvement in surface water quantity volume and peak flow over the future baseline condition for the site outlet. Mass discharge of chloride from groundwater to surface water is expected to decline in future. With compensation plantings, no net loss of significant vegetation communities, Butternut trees, significant wildlife habitat or amphibian breeding locations. No net effects to fish or fish habitat off-site within the downstream receivers. All potential off-site air quality impacts will comply with MOE standards. Leachate Management System will minimize net effects from odour. All receptors will remain below MOE noise limits for landfill operations. Increase in employment and opportunities for local vendors/suppliers during construction. Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan will avoid or minimize dust emissions. No agricultural land will be taken out of active production. Potential archaeological net effects avoided or mitigated through a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. No net effects on cultural heritage resources anticipated. Disadvantages Will eliminate on-site operation of the TDU, Spent Pot Liner processing and equipment laydown areas within the last five years of operation. Active collection and disposal of leachate required. Potential increase in runoff volume and peak flow rate to the site outlets. Net loss of 0.77 ha of less significant vegetation. Wildlife avoidance along forest edge of Southeast Woodlot. Potential off-site air quality impacts during construction. Off-site noise impact is limited to eight existing residential dwellings. Landfill will be visible from off site in a few locations due to the lower berm elevation in the vicinity of the site entrances. Net loss of 13.8 ha of Class 2, Class 3 lands and Disturbed Lands if setback is required. No disadvantages to Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources.

35 Next Steps Your feedback from this Open House will be considered along with those received from First Nations and review agencies in preparation of the Draft EA Report (Spring, 2014). The Draft EA Report will be made available for review on the Project s website, at the Township of St. Clair Municipal Office and other locations. Thank you! Thank you for attending today s Open House. Your input and participation is important to us. You are invited to submit written comments or questions via mail, electronic mail ( ) or fax to the addresses/numbers published below. You can also submit questions on our project information line at Michael E. Parker Director Environmental Compliance, Lambton Facility Clean Harbors Canada, Inc Telfer Road, RR#1, Corunna, ON, N0N 1G0 Fax: (519) parker.michaele@cleanharbors.com Larry Fedec, P.Eng. Project Manager, Lambton Landfill Project AECOM 105 Commerce Valley Drive West, 7th Floor, Markham, ON L3T 7W3 Fax: (905) larry.fedec@aecom.com Project website: Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in a submission will become part of the public record files for this matter and will be released, if requested, to any person.

36 Appendix C Newspaper Ad 34ra_ _Tps_ Docx

37 CLEAN HARBORS LAMBTON LANDFILL EXPANSION NOTICE OF OPEN HOUSE Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. the owner and operator of the Lambton Landfill commenced an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the Environmental Assessment Act on March 30, 2011 to develop additional waste disposal capacity at the landfill. Clean Harbors has identified the need for approximately 4.5 million to 5.0 million cubic metres of landfill capacity to continue to manage waste at the Lambton Landfill over a 25 year period. The additional capacity will enable Clean Harbors to continue providing secure disposal service in Ontario. The landfill is located in the Township of St. Clair (see Key Map) and has been in operation for nearly 50 years. The landfill receives hazardous waste materials from commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal sources. Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. is hosting an Open House regarding the Lambton Landfill EA. The purpose of this event is to provide an opportunity for the community to obtain information and provide comments on the comparative evaluation that was conducted to identify the preferred alternative for the project. Members of the public, agencies, First Nations and other interested persons are encouraged to attend the Open House. The date and location of the Open House is provided below: Date and Time Thursday April 10, :00 PM to 8:00 PM Location Brigden Fire Station Hall, st Street Brigden, Ontario The EA is considering two alternatives for providing the additional disposal capacity. One alternative involves a vertical expansion over the current landfill area to an approximate height equal to the height of the existing surrounding earth berms. The second alternative involves development of a new below ground landfill cell directly south of the existing landfill site. The comparative evaluation of the alternatives determined that Alternative 1, the vertical expansion at the existing site, is the preferred alternative. In addition to attending this open house, you are invited to submit written comments via mail, electronic mail ( ) or fax to the address/number published below. You can also submit your comments on our project information line at (519) Michael E. Parker Director Environmental Compliance, Lambton Facility Clean Harbors Canada, Inc Telfer Road, RR#1, Corunna ON, N0N 1G0 Fax: (519) parker.michaele@cleanharbors.com Larry Fedec, P.Eng. Project Manager, Lambton Landfill Project, AECOM 105 Commerce Valley Drive West, 7th Floor, Markham ON L3T 7W3 Fax: (905) larry.fedec@aecom.com EA documentation is available for review at the Project s website: Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in a submission will become part of the public record files for this matter and will be released, if requested, to any person.

38 Appendix D Notice of Open House 34ra_ _Tps_ Docx

39 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc Telfer Rd. Corunna, Ontario N0N 1G0 (519) March 26, 2014 Wray Enterprises Ltd Petrolia Line, RR #1 Corunna, ON N0N 1G0 Dear Sir/Madam: Re: Identification of the Preferred Alternative and Upcoming Open House, Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. the owner and operator of the Lambton Landfill commenced an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the Environmental Assessment Act on March 30, 2011 to develop additional waste disposal capacity at the landfill. The EA is considering two alternatives for providing the additional disposal capacity. One alternative involves a vertical expansion over the current landfill area to an approximate height equal to the height of the existing surrounding earth berms. The second alternative involves development of a new below ground landfill cell directly south of the existing landfill site. We are writing to inform you that based on a comparative evaluation of the net effects, Alternative 1, the vertical expansion at the existing site, was identified as the Preferred Alternative. The results of the evaluation will be presented at the upcoming Open House on April 10, 2014 at the Brigden Fire Station Hall (1561 1st Street, Brigden, Ontario) from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM. For additional details, please refer to the attached Notice. Should you wish to review the documented results in person, hard copies are available at the Clean Harbors Lambton Facility. Note that consultation opportunities are planned periodically during the EA process and will be advertised in local newspapers, on our project website and by direct or electronic mail ( ). Yours truly, Michael E. Parker Director Environmental Compliance, Lambton Facility Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. (519) Enclosures: Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Notice of Open House

40 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. the owner and operator of the Lambton Landfill commenced an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the Environmental Assessment Act on March 30, 2011 to develop additional waste disposal capacity at the landfill. Clean Harbors has identified the need for approximately 4.5 million to 5.0 million cubic metres of landfill capacity to continue to manage waste at the Lambton Landfill over a 25 year period. The additional capacity will enable Clean Harbors to continue providing secure disposal service in Ontario. The landfill is located in the Township of St. Clair (see Key Map) and has been in operation for nearly 50 years. The landfill receives hazardous waste materials from commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal sources. Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. is hosting an Open House regarding the Lambton Landfill EA. The purpose of this event is to provide an opportunity for the community to obtain information and provide comments on the comparative evaluation that was conducted to identify the preferred alternative for the project. Members of the public, agencies, First Nations and other interested persons are encouraged to attend the Open House. The date and location of the Open House is provided below: Date and Time Thursday April 10, :00 PM to 8:00 PM Location Brigden Fire Station Hall, st Street Brigden, Ontario The EA is considering two alternatives for providing the additional disposal capacity. One alternative involves a vertical expansion over the current landfill area to an approximate height equal to the height of the existing surrounding earth berms. The second alternative involves development of a new below ground landfill cell directly south of the existing landfill site. The comparative evaluation of the alternatives determined that Alternative 1, the vertical expansion at the existing site, is the preferred alternative. In addition to attending this open house, you are invited to submit written comments via mail, electronic mail ( ) or fax to the address/number published below. You can also submit your comments on our project information line at (519) Michael E. Parker Director Environmental Compliance, Lambton Facility Clean Harbors Canada, Inc Telfer Road, RR#1 Corunna, ON N0N 1G0 Fax: (519) parker.michaele@cleanharbors.com Larry Fedec, P.Eng. Project Manager, Lambton Landfill Project AECOM 105 Commerce Valley Drive West, 7 th Floor Markham, ON L3T 7W3 Fax: (905) larry.fedec@aecom.com Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in a submission will become part of the public record files for this matter and will be released, if requested, to any person.

41 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc Telfer Rd. Corunna, Ontario N0N 1G0 (519) March 26, 2014 Chief Joel Abram Oneida Nation of the Thames 2212 Elm Avenue Southwold, ON N0L 2G0 Dear Chief Abram: Re: Identification of the Preferred Alternative and Upcoming Open House, Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. the owner and operator of the Lambton Landfill commenced an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the Environmental Assessment Act on March 30, 2011 to develop additional waste disposal capacity at the landfill. The EA is considering two alternatives for providing the additional disposal capacity. One alternative involves a vertical expansion over the current landfill area to an approximate height equal to the height of the existing surrounding earth berms. The second alternative involves development of a new below ground landfill cell directly south of the existing landfill site. We are writing to inform you that based on a comparative evaluation of the net effects, Alternative 1, the vertical expansion at the existing site, was identified as the Preferred Alternative. The results of the evaluation will be presented at the upcoming Open House on April 10, 2014 at the Brigden Fire Station Hall (1561 1st Street, Brigden, Ontario) from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM. For additional details, please refer to the attached Notice. Should you wish to review the documented results in person, hard copies are available at the Clean Harbors Lambton Facility. Note that consultation opportunities are planned periodically during the EA process and will be advertised in local newspapers, on our project website and by direct or electronic mail ( ). Yours truly, Michael E. Parker Director Environmental Compliance, Lambton Facility Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. (519) Enclosures: Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Notice of Open House

42 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. the owner and operator of the Lambton Landfill commenced an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the Environmental Assessment Act on March 30, 2011 to develop additional waste disposal capacity at the landfill. Clean Harbors has identified the need for approximately 4.5 million to 5.0 million cubic metres of landfill capacity to continue to manage waste at the Lambton Landfill over a 25 year period. The additional capacity will enable Clean Harbors to continue providing secure disposal service in Ontario. The landfill is located in the Township of St. Clair (see Key Map) and has been in operation for nearly 50 years. The landfill receives hazardous waste materials from commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal sources. Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. is hosting an Open House regarding the Lambton Landfill EA. The purpose of this event is to provide an opportunity for the community to obtain information and provide comments on the comparative evaluation that was conducted to identify the preferred alternative for the project. Members of the public, agencies, First Nations and other interested persons are encouraged to attend the Open House. The date and location of the Open House is provided below: Date and Time Thursday April 10, :00 PM to 8:00 PM Location Brigden Fire Station Hall, st Street Brigden, Ontario The EA is considering two alternatives for providing the additional disposal capacity. One alternative involves a vertical expansion over the current landfill area to an approximate height equal to the height of the existing surrounding earth berms. The second alternative involves development of a new below ground landfill cell directly south of the existing landfill site. The comparative evaluation of the alternatives determined that Alternative 1, the vertical expansion at the existing site, is the preferred alternative. In addition to attending this open house, you are invited to submit written comments via mail, electronic mail ( ) or fax to the address/number published below. You can also submit your comments on our project information line at (519) Michael E. Parker Director Environmental Compliance, Lambton Facility Clean Harbors Canada, Inc Telfer Road, RR#1 Corunna, ON N0N 1G0 Fax: (519) parker.michaele@cleanharbors.com Larry Fedec, P.Eng. Project Manager, Lambton Landfill Project AECOM 105 Commerce Valley Drive West, 7 th Floor Markham, ON L3T 7W3 Fax: (905) larry.fedec@aecom.com Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in a submission will become part of the public record files for this matter and will be released, if requested, to any person.