Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Summary of the First Open House

Transcription

1 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Summary of the First Open House

2 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Summary of the First Open House Prepared by: AECOM 105 Commerce Valley Drive West, Floor tel Markham, ON, Canada L3T 7W fax Project Number: Date: February, 2014

3 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Summary of the First Open House Table of Contents page 1. Overview of the Open House Open House Notification Details Attendance Open House Schedule Comment Sheets... 2 Appendices Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Copy of Comment Sheet Open House Information Panels Newspaper Ad Notice of Open House 01ra_ _CH - Open House Summ Rpt_ Docx

4 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Summary of the First Open House 1. Overview of the Open House This Report provides a summary of the events that took place at the Environmental Assessment (EA) Open House #3 held on January 21, The Open House was held to present the existing conditions, the two alternatives for the project, to review the results of the net effect analyses and comparative evaluations, to discuss the next steps of the EA process, and to obtain feedback from participants. The Open House was organized in an information session format with poster boards displayed around the periphery of the hall with EA documentation, such as the Existing Conditions Report and Net Effects and Comparative Evaluation Reports available for review. Clean Harbors staff and consultants were available to discuss the information panels, receive comments and answer questions. As members of the public arrived, they were asked to sign-in and were then given a comment sheet (Appendix A) which included questions regarding the information presented. The members of the public were given the option of filling out the forms on-site or providing their comments via mail, or fax to the project team. Topics outlined on information panels (Appendix B) included: information about Clean Harbors and the existing Lambton Facility; project background and the EA process; the conceptual design of the two alternatives being considered; existing environmental conditions, net effect analyses and comparative evaluations from each technical discipline; and next steps and project contact information. The information panels were uploaded to the project website on January 23, Open House Notification Details Advertising for the Open House was placed in local newspapers (Appendix C) on the following dates: Sarnia Observer... January 7, 2014 and January 14, 2014 Sarnia-Lambton This Week... January 9 and January 16, 2014 Petrolia Topic... January 8 and January 15, 2014 On Monday, January 7, 2014, area First Nation Chiefs and environmental officers, as well as site neighbours were sent a letter (Appendix D) by mail to advise of the completion of the Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Reports and the upcoming Open House. The notice was also ed to members of the Government Review Team, St. Clair Township Peer Review Team, Aamjiwnaang First Nation and Walpole Island First Nation on Monday, January 7, Attendance Registration at the Open House indicates 39 individuals attended the event. Clean Harbors staff included: Michael Parker, Director, Environmental Compliance David Jamieson, Facility Administrator Scott Odolphy, Compliance Manager In addition to several additional Clean Harbors staff 01ra_ _CH - Open House Summ Rpt_ Docx 1

5 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Summary of the First Open House The Consulting team included: Larry Fedec, AECOM (Project Manager) Julia Cushing, AECOM (Environmental Planner) Wendy Ott, AECOM (Surface Water) Gunther Funk, RWDI (Groundwater) Peter-James Mauro, RWDI (Groundwater) Gordon Reusing, CRA (Air) Jim Yardley, CRA (Engineering, Conceptual Designs) Dave Hodgson, DBH Soil Services Inc. (Agriculture) 4. Open House Schedule The Open House was held at the Brigden Fire Station Hall, st Street, Brigden, Ontario from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The Open House was organized to allow attendees to circulate around the room, review information panels and ask questions of Clean Harbors staff and consultants. 5. Comment Sheets A total of four comment sheets were received at the Open House. One additional comment sheet was received via mail. A copy of the comment sheet is included in Appendix A. A summary of written questions/comments received and responses are included in Table 1 below. Table 1. Summary of Comments Received and Responses Comment Will the expansion affect the value of my property? The Good Neighbour Program needs to be revisited. For Alternative 1, concerned about smell and leachate. Response Clean Harbors has had in place for many years a Good Neighbour Program which includes a Property Value Protection Plan that protects the market value of properties within the vicinity of the landfill. The company intends to maintain the Good Neighbour Program should approval for the landfill capacity expansion be received. The program will be updated and clarified as appropriate in consultation with stakeholders. Under the Good Neighbour Program both landowners in the vicinity of the site and St. Clair Township receive annual payments, which are among the most generous of such policies in the Province. The program will be updated and clarified as appropriate in consultation with stakeholders. During the Net Effects Analysis, it was determined that all potential off-site air quality impacts from Alternative 1 would comply with the Ministry of the Environment health and risk based Air Quality Standards. Clean Harbors has implemented an Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan to ensure that activities that have the potential to generate odours are conducted in a manner designed to minimize or eliminate off-site impacts. Recent odour monitoring programs have indicated that there are no off-site odour impacts from the main potential odour sources. All residents are encouraged to contact Clean Harbors should they have any odour concerns and Clean Harbors is committed to responding in a timely manner (within 2 hours). As part of the Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan, Clean Harbors notifies the Ministry of the Environment and conducts an investigation for each odour complaint. 01ra_ _CH - Open House Summ Rpt_ Docx 2

6 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Summary of the First Open House Table 1. Summary of Comments Received and Responses Comment For Alternative 2, concerned about taking agricultural land and leachate in groundwater. Will leachate get into groundwater? What are we leaving generations to come? What is the exit plan after 25 years? What health effects will be in our community? Want to enjoy our home at all times. The open house helped me understand how surface water is handled. Option one would be best suited for the site. Request to be added to the Project Contact List and receive a copy of the information panels. Response Alternative 2 will remove approximately 122 ha of land from agricultural production. This was considered in the net effects and comparative evaluation process and as such, Alternative 1 is considered preferred from an agricultural perspective due to the displacement of agricultural land under Alternative 2. The existing site is operating in compliance with Ministry of the Environment requirements and is carefully monitored to ensure the safety of groundwater and surface water in the area. The existing site is operating in compliance with Ministry of the Environment requirements and is carefully monitored to ensure the safety of groundwater and surface water in the area. Clean Harbors is committed to the ensuring the long-term protection of the environment at the site, and has provided the Ministry of the Environment with financial assurance based upon the predicted closure and post closure costs associated with the site. The facility has an Environmental Compliance Approval that requires routine re-evaluation of these costs. Clean Harbors has identified that the proposed expansion will provide approximately 25 years of disposal capacity. The company will assess future plans for the facility as the landfill reaches its capacity, should the expansion be approved. The Facility is operating in compliance with Ministry of the Environment requirements and standards which are based on the protection of human health and the environment. The air, groundwater, surface water and plant life around the Facility are monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure it continues to operate safely and without adverse effects. As part of the EA, Clean Harbors has completed an assessment of potential human health risks as they relate to the existing operations at the CH Lambton Facility. The results of the assessment did not identify any impacts to human health. Clean Harbors has had in place for many years a Good Neighbour Program which protects the market value of properties within the vicinity of the landfill. The company intends to maintain the Good Neighbour Program should approval for the landfill capacity expansion be received. Additionally, Clean Harbors provides the opportunity for community members to express their concerns with the Facility. All complaints of nuisance effects are recorded and investigated by Clean Harbors. When required, adjustments to operations are made and the complaint is subsequently reported to the Ministry of the Environment. Comment noted. Comment noted. This request was fulfilled by Clean Harbors. 01ra_ _CH - Open House Summ Rpt_ Docx 3

7 Appendix A Copy of Comment Sheet 01rb_ _Tps_ Docx

8 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment January 21, 2014 Open House We want to hear from you! Thank you for your participation in the Open House for the Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment. 1. Which best describes your interest in the project? Property Owner Tenant Other (specify) Local Institution Local Business 2. Do you have any specific comments, concerns or recommendations about the Clean Harbors Lambton Environmental Assessment process or the evaluation presented? Yes No Comments: 3. Were you generally satisfied with the information made available at the Clean Harbors Open House? Yes No Partly Comments: 4. Do you consent to your comments being included in the public record? Yes Yes, but anonymously No 5. Do you have any general questions or comments regarding this evening s Open House or do you require more information regarding the proposed project?

9 Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment January 21, 2014 Open House Please leave your comments below if you have more to say: Name: Address: Telephone: Please place your completed comment card in the box by the registration table, or leave it with a project team member. Alternatively, you can return the form by mail, fax or to: 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 Thank you for sharing your feedback! 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.

10 Appendix B Open House Information Panels 01rb_ _Tps_ Docx

11 Welcome! Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Individual Environmental Assessment Open House, January 21, 2014 We are here to: Present the two Alternatives being considered. Review the results of the net effects analyses and comparative evaluations. Discuss the project and answer your questions.

12 Who Are We? Clean Harbors, Inc. is North America's leading provider of environmental and hazardous waste management services. Clean Harbors Canada, Inc., a subsidiary of Clean Harbors, Inc., is Canada's leading provider of environmental and hazardous waste management services, including waste disposal, laboratory chemical packing, field services and emergency response. The Company provides essential services to large and small businesses and numerous federal, provincial and local governmental agencies. Clean Harbors employs 135 people at the Lambton Facility.

13 Project Background Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. the owner and operator of the Lambton Facility commenced an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the Environmental Assessment Act on March 30, 2011 to develop additional waste disposal capacity for the landfill at the Facility. The landfill which has been in operation for nearly 50 years receives hazardous waste materials from commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal sources. Approximately 4.5 to 5.0 million cubic metres of landfill capacity are required to continue to manage waste at the Lambton Facility over a 25 year period. The additional capacity will enable Clean Harbors to continue providing secure disposal service in Ontario. The existing Lambton Landfill is located in the Township of St. Clair, near Sarnia, Ontario.

14 Environmental Assessment Process An EA is a decision making process used to promote good environmental planning by assessing the potential effects of certain activities on the natural and human environment. In Ontario, this process is defined and finds its authority in the Environmental Assessment Act and its associated regulations. Milestones to Date: December 2010 the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Lambton Landfill expansion was approved by the Minister of the Environment. March 2011 Commencement of Environmental Assessment. March 2013 Completion of existing conditions studies. January 2014 Completion of net effects analyses. EA Process Flow Chart

15 Existing Landfill Facility

16 The Alternatives Two Alternative methods are being considered to provide additional landfill capacity. Alternative 1 consists of a vertical expansion over the existing landfill, Alternative 2 consists of a shallow entombed landfill to the south of the existing facility. The Study Area for the Alternatives are shown in the Figure below. Alternative 1 and Alternative AA 2

17 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

18 Alternative 1 Conceptual Design

19 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

20 Alternative 2 Conceptual Design

21 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

22 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.

23 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

24 Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Regional & Local Hydrogeology The overburden stratigraphy in the Local Study Area from surface (youngest) to depth (oldest) includes: a discontinuous, thin (<4 m) deposit of silt and sand; 10 to 15 m thick silt to clayey silt till (St. Joseph Till); 15 to 25 m thick stony silt to clayey silt till (Black Shale Till); and a discontinuous layer of sandy silt till (Basal Till). The till units contain sand bodies/pockets and thin lens/layers of sand and silt with limited areal extent. The upper few metres of the St. Joseph Till are intensely weathered and fractured. The bedrock is the Kettle Point Formation, which is 6 to 15 m thick. The upper weathered and fractured clayey silt till is hydraulically active and referred to as the Active Aquitard. Groundwater movement is primarily horizontal, through the fractures from topographic highs to adjacent low areas. While there is evidence of minor hydraulic activity to depths of 10 to 15 m locally, groundwater movement through the underlying unfractured clayey silt till is extremely slow and the till acts as an aquitard. Basal Till, where present, and the upper of the shale bedrock where fractured, have a comparatively high hydraulic conductivity and have been exploited regionally and locally as a source of water supply. This zone of hydraulic activity is referred to as the Interface Aquifer. PeopleandTechnologyCreatingaBetterEnvironment

25 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)

26 Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Groundwater Monitoring Program Monitoring wells have been installed in two hydraulically active water bearing zones: one near the surface (called Active Aquitard ); and the second at the overburden bedrock contact (called Interface Aquifer ). Monitoring involves the measurement of water levels (to establish groundwater flow direction) and the collection of water samples for chemical analysis. GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS Groundwater samples are analyzed for a full suite of compounds by an independent laboratory at detection limits below the Ministry of Environment s Ontario Drinking Water Standards. PeopleandTechnologyCreatingaBetterEnvironment (Left):Table32from Geologyand Hydrogeology ExistingConditions Report ANNUAL GROUNDWATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS

27 Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Groundwater Monitoring Program The samples from the shallow wells are enriched in Ca 2+, Mg 2+ and SO 2-4 and depleted in Na + and Cl -. The water quality of the Interface Aquifer is enriched in Na + and Cl -, depleted in Ca 2+, Mg 2+ and SO 2-4. GROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY SUMMARY Samples from deeper well installations installed in the underlying shale aquitard are enriched in most parameters (Ca 2+, Mg 2+,Na +, K +, HCO - 3, Cl -, Br -, B - and Ba 2+ ) Table33fromGeologyandHydrogeologyExistingConditionsReport PeopleandTechnologyCreatingaBetterEnvironment

28 Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Groundwater Chemistry Observation Cause/Source Day to day activities associated with facility operations including: SHALLOW GROUNDWATER Effects from Routine Operations Construction Effects Increasing trends in chloride concentrations observed at two shallow wells at the site. Higher average chloride, sodium, potassium and sulphate are observed in wells installed in the berm fill materials and in the weathered/fractured zone of the native clay immediately below the fill. Alteration of shallow groundwater flow patterns. Disposal of waste water/sewage/garbage. Management of laboratory effluent. Truck washing. Deicing chemicals used on roadways both internal to site and along Telfer Road. Waste handling/processing (potential for minor spills and emissions). Weathering/oxidation of clay used in construction of berms. Alteration of groundwater flow due to mounding within berm. Landfill Effects A number of parameters are elevated in samples from TW15-94 which is installed in the toe of the Pre-1986 landfill. Movement of leachate and gas following placement/disposal of waste in landfill cells. Observation Increasing Concentrations of Inorganic Indicator Parameters in Wells Along Facility Property Boundary. Volatile Organic Compounds (TCE and degradation products observed at TW22-99D). Cause/Source The increase is associated with the general rise in groundwater levels in the Interface Aquifer, which has reduced the vertical and horizontal hydraulic gradients in the Aquifer creating sluggish flow conditions. Less groundwater is moving through the Interface Aquifer and there is less dilution available to counteract the diffusion of these ions from the pore space/matrix of the shale bedrock. A detailed investigation is underway to identify a possible source of VOCs. Based on interim results a linkage (i.e., hydraulic gradient or chemical gradient) between the landfill and the well has not been established. DEEP GROUNDWATER

29 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).

30 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.

31 Surface Water Existing Conditions Quantity The Facility is situated on the drainage divide of two watersheds: Perch Creek drains to the north to Lake Huron and Bear Creek drains to the south. The Facility is situated on the drainage divide of two watersheds: Perch Creek drains to the north to Lake Huron and Bear Creek drains to the south. Within the Study Area, drainage sub-catchments were determined and general drainage patterns were confirmed based on the revised 2012 Site Plan. o The north drainage outlet (to Perch Creek) collects water from off-site areas, as well as the Facility areas outside the current and historic active operational areas. o The south drainage outlet (to Bear Creek) includes runoff from outside the Facility current operational areas through the stormwater treatment plant including from capped portions of the landfill, as well as runoff from the property to the immediate south of the current facility (i.e., including the area being considered for the shallow entombment alternative) and untreated runoff from facility areas outside the containment berm. Current site configuration requires pumping to convey runoff generated within non-operational portions of the site to the surface water treatment plant and then off-site to the eastern roadside ditch along Telfer Road (also referred to as McBean Drain). Surface water flow within the eastern Telfer roadside ditch immediately downstream of Facility inputs is primarily supported by discharge from the on-site reservoir.

32 Surface Water Existing Conditions Quality Water generated at the existing landfill site by storm events consists of three types of water: o Process water: runoff from the operational areas that is retained onsite and used for Facility operations (e.g., cooling water in the on-site incinerator); o Leachate: water that passes through the active landfill. It is a requirement to incinerate leachate or dispose it at a hazardous waste facility; and o Surface water: runoff from undeveloped portions of the site, perimeter berms, capped and closed landfill cells. All surface water is directed to the on-site surface water treatment facility. The design and operating practices for existing surface water management at the Lambton Facility has always controlled surface water impacts within the site boundary. Off-site discharge is not permitted until Environmental Compliance Approvals are met.

33 Surface Water Existing Conditions

34 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.

35 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.

36 Natural Environment Existing Conditions Terrestrial Alternative 1 Significant Woodland in the Southeast and Southwest Woodlots. Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) in the Southeast and Southwest Woodlots (habitat for provincially rare Giant Swallowtail butterfly). Deciduous swamp (part of a Locally Significant Wetland in the Southeast Woodlot). One significant amphibian breeding site in the Southeast Woodlot. Three other minor amphibian breeding sites which do not qualify as SWH. Cultural Woodland (less functional vegetation) adjacent to the Southeast and Southwest Woodlots. One Butternut tree, which is identified as an Endangered Species.

37 Natural Environment Existing Conditions Terrestrial Alternative 2 Significant Woodland in the Southwest and South Woodlots. Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) in the Southwest and South Woodlots (habitat for provincially rare Giant Swallowtail butterfly). One significant amphibian breeding site in the Southeast Woodlot. Two other minor amphibian breeding sites which do not qualify as SWH. Cultural Woodland (less functional vegetation) adjacent to the Southwest Woodlot.

38 Natural Environment Existing Conditions Aquatic A limited isolated off-line residence of a small baitfish community exists within the Equalization Reservoir. A permanent barrier to fish passage exists at the point of discharge from the Equalization Reservoir to the off-site receivers. As surface waters are ultimately discharged off-site, the receiving waters and watercourses were the primary focus of study as it relates to aquatic ecosystems. Fish habitat from monitored stations within the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 Study Area was found to be of uniform morphology and sensitivity. Fish community is composed of generalist species that are wide spread in distribution and not particularly sensitive to environmental change. No records of aquatic Species at Risk (SAR) were identified (as referenced by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)).

39 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.

40 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.

41 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.

42 Air Quality and Odour Existing Conditions Air dispersion modelling results indicate that there are no exceedances of any air quality standards due to the Facility's air emissions. o This has been confirmed by the Facility's annual fenceline monitoring program. The primary Facility odour sources are the: o Landfill leachate ponds; o Carbon pre-treatment area; o Landfill working face; and o Thermal desorption units. Clean Harbors implemented a Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan that has reduced the potential for odour impacts. o Recent odour monitoring programs have indicated that there are no off-site odour impacts from the main potential odour sources.

43 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

44 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.

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

46 Noise Existing Conditions Existing noise levels at the Facility meet the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) noise limits, 40 dba to 55 dba, at the 14 surrounding residential point-of-reception. MOE defines a "point-of-reception" as permanent or seasonal residences for overnight accommodation (homes, hotels/motels, nursing/retirement homes, rental residences, hospitals and overnight campgrounds) or sensitive receptors (schools or places of worship). Noise existing conditions for the Study Area are summarized as follows: o Steady state noise from the existing Facility; o Impulse noise generated from the baghouse controls; and o Road traffic noise from Petrolia Line, Brigden Road, Plank Road, Rokeby Line.

47 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.

48 Noise Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Alternative1 Alternative2 PeopleandTechnologyCreatingaBetterEnvironment

49 Socio-Economic Existing Conditions In 2011, St. Clair Township s population was approximately 14,515. There are 69 residences within 1,500 m of Alternative 1 and 2 (see Figure for boundaries). One commercial business was identified within this area (excluding agricultural operations). Clean Harbors makes financial contributions to neighboring property owners through its Good Neighbours Program. Clean Harbors also makes financial contributions to St. Clair Township through taxes and service fees, including an annual waste volume fee. The area around the Facility is a quiet, agricultural community dominated by flat open farmland. The existing Lambton Facility is largely screened from the surrounding area; however, some elements of the Facility are visible such as the incinerator stack.

50 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.

51 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.

52 Agriculture Existing Conditions An assessment of soils and Canada Land Inventory ratings indicate that the Study Area is comprised of Prime Agricultural Lands (Class 2 and 3 lands). Predominant agricultural use in the Study Area is associated with cash crops; including: o Corn; o Soybean; o Pasture; and o Small grains. Majority of the Study Area contains artificial tile drainage, these lands with tile drainage confirm that there is investment related to agriculture.

53 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.

54 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Existing Conditions The Stage 1 archaeological assessment determined that no archaeological sites have been registered within 2 km of the Study Area. A review of the general physiography of the Study Area suggested that it has low potential for the identification of Aboriginal archaeological sites. However, local 19th century land use suggested that the Study Area has potential for the identification of Euro-Canadian archaeological sites. A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment must be conducted on all land which may be disturbed from proposed construction and operation activities to confirm potential impacts to archaeological resources prior to any land disturbance, in accordance with MTCS 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Alternatives 1 and 2 contain two cultural heritage resources, the pioneer cemetery and Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape, respectively.

55 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.

56 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.

57 Next Steps Your feedback from this Open House will be considered along with those received from First Nations and review agencies to confirm the Preferred Alternative. The following criteria and relative rankings will be used in the decision making process. This was confirmed as part of the approved ToR. Criteria Air Emissions Groundwater Quality Odour Groundwater Quantity Surface Water Quality Surface Water Quantity Terrestrial Ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystems Disruption to Use and Enjoyment of Residences (Social) Agricultural Operations Site Development and Operating Requirements (Technical) Agricultural Resources Economic Benefits Noise Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources Ranking Very Important Very Important Very Important Very Important Very Important Very Important Very Important Very Important Very Important Very Important Important Important Important Important Important A preferred Alternative will be identified and presented at an upcoming open house (March, 2014). The Draft EA Report will be prepared and made available for review (Spring, 2014).

58 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 Larry Fedec, P.Eng. Director Environmental Compliance, Project Manager, Lambton Facility Lambton Landfill Project Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. AECOM 4090 Telfer Road, RR#1, Corunna, 105 Commerce Valley Drive West, 7th ON, N0N 1G0 Floor, Markham, ON L3T 7W3 Fax: (519) Fax: (905) larry.fedec@aecom.com parker.michaele@cleanharbors.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.

59 Appendix C Newspaper Ad 01rb_ _Tps_ Docx

60 CLEAN HARBORS LAMBTON LANDFILL EXPANSION, TOWNSHIP OF ST. CLAIR NOTICE OF PUBLIC 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. The Process In December 2010, the Minister of the Environment approved the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the proposed Lambton Landfill expansion by Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. A study is being carried out according to the approved ToR. Results from this study will be documented in an EA, which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for review. 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. Assessments were conducted to identify effects related to air emissions; noise; odour; ground water quality and quantity; surface water quality and quantity; terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; agriculture resources; archaeology/cultural resources; facility characteristics; and socio-economics for each proposed alternative. The results of these assessments are available for review at the Project s website ( _library.html) and will be presented at the upcoming Public Open House. Consultation Clean Harbors is hosting a Public Open House to present the findings of the effects analyses described above. Members of the public, agencies, First Nations and other interested persons are encouraged to attend the Public Open House or to contact us directly with information, comments or questions. The date and location of the Public Open House is provided below: Date and Time January 21, 2013, 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Location Brigden Fire Station Hall, st Street Brigden, Ontario If you would like to be added to our project mailing list or have project related questions, you are invited to submit written comments 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 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.