6. Net Effects of the Alternative Methods 6-1

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "6. Net Effects of the Alternative Methods 6-1"

Transcription

1 Table of Contents Net Effects Methodology Evaluation Criteria and Indicators Key Design Considerations, Future Baseline Conditions & Maximum Impact / Worst-Case Scenario Extended Site Life Net Effects Analysis Results Agriculture Alternative Alternative Extended Site Life Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources Alternative Alternative Extended Site Life Atmospheric Environment (Air Quality and Odour) Alternative Alternative Extended Site Life Noise Alternative Alternative Extended Site Life Geology and Hydrogeology Groundwater Quantity Groundwater Quality Summary of Net Effects for the Two Alternatives Extended Site Life Surface Water Alternative Alternative Extended Site Life Natural Environment (Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems) Alternative Alternative Extended Site Life Socio-Economic Alternative Alternative Extended Site Life Technical Alternative Alternative Extended Site Life page Chapter 06_Draft EA_29ra_ Docx

2 List of Figures Figure 6-1 Soil Survey, Canada Land Inventory, Alternative Figure 6-2 Cultural Resources and Archaeological Potential Figure 6-3 Air Emission Source Location Plan Alternative Figure 6-4 Air Emission Source Location Plan Alternative Figure 6-5 Total Suspended Particulate Annual Contour Plot Alternative Figure 6-6 Total Suspended Particulate Annual Contour Plot Alternative Figure 6-7 Cumulative Noise Impact Contours Daytime Alternative Figure 6-8 Cumulative Noise Impact Contours Daytime Alternative Figure 6-9 Existing Condition Stormwater Management Catchments Figure 6-10 Future Baseline Stormwater Management Catchments Figure 6-11 Alternative 1 Stormwater Management Catchments Figure 6-12 Alternative 2 Stormwater Management Catchments Figure 6-13 Terrestrial Impacts from Alternative Figure 6-14 Terrestrial Impacts from Alternative List of Tables Table 6-1 Evaluation Criteria and Indicators for Each Discipline Table 6-2 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Agriculture Table 6-3 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Agriculture Table 6-4 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources Table 6-5 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources Table 6-6 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Air Quality and Odour Table 6-7 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Air Quality and Odour Table 6-8 Construction Impact from Alternative 1 (Receptors to the North) Table 6-9 Predicted Noise Impact from Alternative 1 (Worst-case Scenario) Table 6-10 Predicted Noise Impact from Alternative 1 (Typical Scenario) Table 6-11 Construction Impact from Alternative 2 (Receptors to the South) Table 6-12 Predicted Noise Impact from Alternative 2 (Worst-case Scenario) Table 6-13 Predicted Noise Impact from Alternative 2 (Typical Scenario) Table 6-14 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Noise Table 6-15 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Noise Table 6-16 Leachate Movement from Alternative 1 and Existing Landfill without Active Pumping Table 6-17 Leachate Movement from Alternative 1 and Existing Landfill with Active Pumping Table Leachate Movement from Alternative 2 and Existing Landfill Table 6-19 Chloride Discharge from Alternative 1 and Existing Landfill without Active Pumping Table 6-20 Chloride Discharge from Alternative 1 and Existing Landfill with Active Pumping Table 6-21 Chloride Discharge from Alternative 2 and Existing Landfill without Active Pumping Table 6-22 Chloride Discharge from Alternative 2 and Existing Landfill with Active Pumping Chapter 06_Draft EA_29ra_ Docx

3 Table 6-23 Comparison of Leachate Discharge from Alternative Method 1 and Alternative Method 2 with Existing Landfill without Active Pumping from Interface Aquifer Table Table 6-25 Table 6-26 Table 6-27 Comparison of Leachate Discharge from Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 with Existing Landfill with Active Pumping from Interface Aquifer Comparison of Chloride Discharge from Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 with Existing Landfill without Active Pumping from Interface Aquifer Comparison of Chloride Discharge from Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 with Existing Landfill with Active Pumping from Interface Aquifer Chloride Mass Extracted from Purge Wells Installed in Interface Aquifer Existing Landfill, Alternative 1 and Alternative Table 6-28 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Geology and Hydrogeology Table 6-29 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Geology and Hydrogeology Table 6-30 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Surface Water Table 6-31 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Surface Water Table 6-32 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Natural Environment Table 6-33 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Natural Environment Table 6-34 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Socio-economic Table 6-35 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Socio-economic Table 6-36 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Technical Table 6-37 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Technical Chapter 06_Draft EA_29ra_ Docx

4 6. The potential effects of the landfill expansion alternatives were identified based on the application of evaluation criteria, indicators and using data sources that were identified in the ToR. This chapter summarizes the findings of the discipline-specific net effects analysis and comparative evaluations. Investigative studies of the following environmental components were carried out for the purpose of generating a more detailed description and understanding of the existing environment that may potentially be affected by the proposed undertaking (see Chapter 4 and Appendix D for details of the existing conditions): Agriculture; Archaeological and Cultural Heritage; Atmospheric Environment (Air Quality and Odour); Noise; Geology and Hydrogeology; Natural Environment; Socio-Economic; Surface Water; and Technical. Following the characterization of the existing environment and further development of the two landfill expansion alternatives in the Conceptual Design Report (Appendix E), the next step was to undertake net effects analysis and comparative evaluations of the alternative methods in order to identify a Preferred Alternative. This chapter utilizes the findings of the discipline-specific Existing Conditions Reports (Appendix D), conditions associated with the currently approved landfill at closure, and the Conceptual Design Report to conduct net effects analysis in accordance with the methodology outlined in the approved ToR. Further details on the discipline-specific net effects analysis are provided in Appendix F. 6.1 Net Effects Methodology With the evaluation criteria and indicators confirmed in the approved ToR and the existing conditions characterized and confirmed through Existing Conditions Reports, a net effects analysis was carried out consisting of the following activities: 1. Identify potential effects (based on indicators) on the environment from each alternative in combination with the currently approved landfill considering maximum predicted waste receipt levels (i.e., 200,000 tonnes of waste per year for approximately 25 years) for the maximum impact stage or worst-case scenario: Based on design considerations and assumptions included in the Conceptual Design Report; Document key design considerations and assumptions applicable to each environmental component (including mitigation measures built into the design); and Document future baseline considerations and assumptions applicable to each environmental component. 2. Identify mitigation measures to address potential environmental effects Additional mitigation measures beyond those included in the Conceptual Design Report required to further minimize or mitigate identified potential effect(s) associated with the proposed landfill alternatives. 3. Identify net environmental effects taking into account mitigation measures. 6-1

5 6.1.1 Evaluation Criteria and Indicators The approved ToR identified the criteria, indicators and data sources for evaluating the landfill expansion alternatives. Table 6-1 provides these details which were used in the discipline-specific net effects analysis and comparative evaluations Key Design Considerations, Future Baseline Conditions & Each discipline identified key design considerations pertinent to the evaluation in their net effects analysis. These considerations are outlined in the Net Effects Analysis tables for each discipline below and demonstrate the influence of the of the landfill design on the net effects analysis. In addition to evaluating the key design considerations, each discipline conducted their net effects analysis based on the future baseline conditions. In order to predict potential environmental effects resulting from the landfill expansion alternatives, the analysis considered the study area s existing conditions at the time of development of the proposed alternatives. These are referred to as the future baseline conditions. At the future baseline year the currently approved Lambton landfill will be closed; however, all other on-site waste management activities will continue. As per the Closure Plan described in the Lambton Landfill Design and Operational Report (March 2010), upon closure of the landfill, the landfill cap will be constructed to its final elevation and contours, covered with topsoil, and vegetative cover will be established. Access roads; other earthen works (such as berms, drainage ditches and swales, surface water reservoirs, etc.); surface water runoff collection, treatment, and discharge; and noise, dust, and lighting abatement measures will be maintained as they were during the operational life of the landfill. Future baseline considerations as they relate to each environmental component are outlined in the Net Effects Analysis tables for each discipline Maximum Impact / Worst-Case Scenario In accordance with the approved ToR, the potential environmental effects were evaluated considering the maximum predicted waste receipt levels. During the period from 2001 to 2010, Clean Harbors landfilled an average of 170,000 tonnes of waste per year. Clean Harbors anticipates that the maximum future waste receipt rate will be comparable to past years and, as such, the net effects analysis considered a conservative maximum predicted waste receipt level of 200,000 tonnes of waste per year during the site life of approximately 25 years. In addition to considering the maximum predicted waste receipt levels, the net effects analysis was carried out for the maximum impact stage or worst-case scenario. The net effects analysis define the maximum impact stage or worst-case scenario as it relates to each discipline, as detailed in Section 6-2 below Extended Site Life It is possible that actual waste volumes received annually at the landfill might be lower than the volumes predicted and, if so, that the landfill might operate beyond the 25 year planning period. As such, the net environmental effects in the context of the landfill lasting longer were also considered. For the purposes of identifying predicted net environmental effects resulting from a longer site life, all environmental components were also evaluated to consider the implications of the landfill lasting approximately 35 years at an average waste receipt rate of 130,000 tonnes per year. 6-2

6 Table 6-1 Evaluation Criteria and Indicators for Each Discipline Discipline Criteria Indicators Data Sources Agriculture Agriculture Displacement of high quality agricultural lands. Resources Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Air Quality & Odour Archaeological Resources Above Ground Cultural Heritage Resources Air Emissions Agricultural operational impacts. Particulate (dust) emissions from landfill. Nuisances caused by weeds due to exposed site area and berms. 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. 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 and institutions). Soil capability mapping and Canada Land Inventory (CLI) ratings supplemented by on site soil survey; Regional and local statistics, mapping, reports and publications; Provincial Policy Statement; Confirmation of agricultural resources (windshield survey and survey of farm owners/ managers within 1 km of the landfill site Atmospheric environmental technical studies; Input from Natural Environment technical discipline including description of existing terrestrial communities and botanical inventory plus predictive evaluation of future botanical conditions / community succession; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. Site record forms for registered sites housed at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS); Published and unpublished documentary sources; Determination of archaeological potential per MTCS guidelines; Field survey of study area and immediate vicinity to confirm areas of archaeological potential; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. Archival documents contained within the local and provincial repositories; Historic mapping; Contact local municipality and heritage / historical society stakeholders; Site analysis and survey of cultural heritage resources located within the study area and in the immediate vicinity; Applicable municipal heritage inventory / register; Relevant background studies that have surveyed cultural heritage resources; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. Environment Canada Sarnia Airport meteorological data; MOE meteorological data; Site ambient air monitoring, stack testing and continuous emissions monitoring data; Receptors confirmed on recent mapping; Sarnia Lambton Environmental Association (SLEA) meteorological data and background air quality data; Waste materials and leachate characterization and sampling data; Emissions Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) reports; Landfill design and operation data; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. 6-3

7 Table 6-1 Evaluation Criteria and Indicators for Each Discipline Discipline Criteria Indicators Data Sources Odour Predicted off-site odour concentrations (g/m 3 and odour units). Environment Canada Sarnia Airport meteorological data; Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses / farms and institutions). MOE meteorological data; SLEA meteorological data and background air quality data; Site odour related data; Site odour complaint history; Waste materials and leachate characterization and sampling data; Receptors confirmed on recent mapping; Odour assessment reports; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. Noise Noise Emissions Geology and Groundwater Hydrogeology Quantity Predicted site-related noise level (dba). Number of off-site receptors potentially affected including residential properties, public facilities, businesses, farms and institutions. Predicted effect of landfill development on groundwater quantity on-site and off-site. MOE guidelines and technical standards; Zoning plans; Mapped receptor locations; Updated noise measurement data; Current Acoustic Assessment Report (AAR) and Noise Abatement Plan (NAP); Landfill design and operation data; and Landfill expansion concept for each alternative. Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. Physical Setting: Extensive existing documentation on site geology and hydrogeology available for site and surroundings. Information summarized in a report prepared in support of Cell 18 EA; and Supplement above with field investigation (geophysical survey, plus one deep and one shallow well) to characterize conditions in area south of existing landfill (i.e., general footprint of area for entombed landfill). Landfill Design: Establish and define design features for two options (vertical and entombed) and associated engineering to be employed to alter infiltration and groundwater flow. Hydraulic Gradients: Existing monitoring programs at the site have resulted in an extensive database on water levels in the two principal water-bearing units, namely the active aquitard and the interface aquifer. Additional data are available on water levels in landfill cells; and Supplement above with field investigation to south of Facility. Leachate Density: Density of leachate in various landfill cells was determined in , and is documented in a report prepared in support of Cell 18 EA; and Program underway to examine quality of leachate derived from solidification processes. Leachate sampling and analysis also underway. Water Balance: Using HELP model and simple flow calculations develop water balance for alternative landfill designs. Establish potential groundwater flux. 6-4

8 Table 6-1 Evaluation Criteria and Indicators for Each Discipline Discipline Criteria Indicators Data Sources Groundwater Predicted effect of contaminant movement on groundwater quality Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Quality on-site and off-site. Proposed facility characteristics Natural Environment Terrestrial Ecosystems Predicted impact on vegetation communities due to landfill footprint, construction and operations on-site. 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. Physical Setting: Extensive existing documentation on site geology and hydrogeology available for site and surroundings. Information summarized in a report prepared in support of Cell 18 EA; and Supplement above with field investigation (geophysical survey, plus one deep and one shallow well) to characterize conditions in area south of existing landfill (i.e., general footprint of area for entombed landfill). Contaminant Transport Processes: Extensive analysis of transport processes completed in , which is documented in a report prepared in support of Cell 18 EA; Lambton Facility property has been the focus of research on contaminant transport processes in clay environments conducted by the University of Waterloo. Information available in published articles and thesis; and Supplement above with updated computer modeling (POLLUTE). Contaminant Characteristics: Extensive analysis of waste and leachate in landfill cells completed in , which is documented in a report prepared in support of Cell 18 EA; and Active program underway to examine quality of leachate derived from solidification processes. Leachate sampling and analysis also underway. Natural Water Quality: Existing monitoring programs at the site have resulted in an extensive database on the quality of the groundwater in the two principal water bearing units, namely the active aquitard and the interface aquifer; and Additional data are available on groundwater in contact with the clay aquitard and the deeper bedrock formations; Regional information on groundwater quality is available in published articles and thesis; Lambton Groundwater Management Study; Supplement above with field investigation to south of facility; and Supplement with survey of well water users within 1 km in conjunction with Agriculture discipline. Existing terrestrial ecosystem investigations, reports and data; Agency databases including Ministry of Natural Resources (Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), Local District, Natural Resource Inventory Value System), St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (SCRCA), Lambton County; Field inventory (Ecological Land Classification (ELC), floristic / tree inventories, wildlife surveys); Input from Geology & Hydrogeology and Surface Water technical disciplines; Topographic mapping and stereo pair air photos; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. 6-5

9 Table 6-1 Evaluation Criteria and Indicators for Each Discipline Discipline Criteria Indicators Data Sources Aquatic Ecosystems 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 on-site. Existing aquatic ecosystem investigations, reports and data, including identified published reports; Agency databases including Ministry of Natural Resources (NHIC, Local District, Natural Resource Inventory Value System), Local Conservation Authority, Conservation Ontario Aquatic Species at Risk, Lambton County; Field inventory data (aquatic sampling); Input from other Geology & Hydrogeology and Surface Water technical disciplines; Topographical mapping and stereo pair air photos; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. Socio- Economic Economic Opportunities to provide goods or services. Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. Social Change in municipal tax base resulting from change in land use. Relative number and levels of jobs at the facility, in the community and among suppliers that are created/sustained during construction and operations. 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 metres of the landfill site boundary. Presence of known or identified Petroleum Resources or related abandoned infrastructure/wells and the predicted impact or 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. Existing off-site residents within 500 metres of the landfill boundary. Existing off-site residents within 1,000 metres of the landfill boundary. Existing off-site residents within 1,500 metres of the landfill boundary. Predicted changes in landscapes and views. Municipal tax roll and assessment; Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) property value assessment data; Clean Harbors; St. Clair Township and Lambton County; and Engineering and/or Agriculture technical disciplines. Survey in conjunction with Agriculture discipline including information on type of business, number of persons potentially impacted and key characteristics (family status, age, farm versus non-farm residential, etc.); Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources; Land Information Ontario; and County of Lambton Official Plan. Aggregate Resources Inventory Mapping (ARIM), Ontario Geological Survey; Geophysical survey and borehole logs from Geology & Hydrogeology technical discipline field investigation. Number of residents confirmed through survey in conjunction with Agriculture discipline; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. Existing conditions and Conceptual Design Report. 6-6

10 Table 6-1 Evaluation Criteria and Indicators for Each Discipline Discipline Criteria Indicators Data Sources Surface Surface Water Water Quality Technical Surface Water Quantity Facility Characteristics Assessment of on-site and off-site surface water quality including any predicted impact from upward diffusion of chemicals from the waste. Predicted water flows for existing and proposed site conditions. 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. Site surface water and drainage studies; Topographic mapping; Ongoing site monitoring reports; MOE published water quality information; Surface water quality assessment; MNR and local Conservation Authority databases; Input from Geology & Hydrogeology and Natural Environment technical disciplines; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. Site surface water and drainage studies; Topographic mapping; Ongoing monitoring reports; MNR and local Conservation Authority databases; Input from Geology & Hydrogeology and Natural Environment technical disciplines; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; and Proposed facility characteristics. Existing facility characteristics and operations; Performance review of landfill expansion alternatives; and Predictive analyses of engineered components. 6-7

11 6.2 Net Effects Analysis Results The net effects analysis was conducted by documenting potential effects associated with each indicator in the future baseline year under a maximum impact stage or worst-case scenario specific to each discipline. Mitigation measures were identified to avoid or minimize potential effects and the net effects were evaluated taking into consideration the application of mitigation measures. Finally, an evaluation of the effects for an extended site life was also conducted. The results of this net effects analysis by environmental component for Alternative 1 Vertical Expansion On-Site and Alternative 2 Shallow Entombment Off-Site are described in the following sections Agriculture The agriculture net effects analysis utilized the findings of the Agriculture Existing Conditions Report, the Air Quality & Odour Existing Conditions Report and the ESDM Reports (Appendix D2, Agriculture Existing Conditions Report and Appendix D5, Air Quality & Odour Existing Conditions Report) to evaluate the two landfill expansion alternatives, in accordance with the methodology as outlined in the approved ToR. The agricultural criteria included the displacement of high quality agricultural lands (CLI Class 1-3 lands) and agricultural operations impacts (dust emissions and weed growth). As previously mentioned, in addition to considering the maximum predicted waste receipt levels, the net effects analysis was carried out for the maximum impact stage or worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario for agriculture would occur during the initial construction phase for both alternatives. These worst-case scenarios both include the effects from loss of land and the potential for fugitive dust emissions from construction activities such as grading, levelling, earth moving, etc. The following section details the net effects analysis as it relates to the agriculture discipline (Appendix F1, Agriculture Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Report). Table 6-2 and Table 6-3 provide a summary of the findings Alternative 1 The potential effects include fugitive dust emissions during the construction phase of the Project, effects on adjacent existing agricultural operations from weed growth on the excavated portion of the berm and the displacement of agricultural land. The mitigation measures for fugitive dust involve the implementation of the existing Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan (pave roads, sweep dust and water roads) to reduce potential fugitive dust emissions. In addition to fugitive dust, there is potential for weed growth on the portion of the berm on the east side of the facility which will be excavated to reduce its height. The excavation is occurring on the interior portion of the berm away from existing agricultural operations and potential effects on existing agricultural operations from weed growth on the interior portion are anticipated to be minimal, as such, mitigation measures are not required. Finally, the southern property boundary of Alternative 1 may be shifted 153 m south to be consistent with the buffer requirements of the existing zoning by-law. Moving the boundary will result 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 (Not Rated). 6-8

12 Alternative 2 The potential effects for Alternative 2 include the direct loss of approximately 45.0 ha of Class 2, 73.8 ha of Class 3 lands and 3.5 ha of Disturbed Lands (Figure 6-1), in addition to the potential for fugitive dust from construction activities and weed growth. There is no mitigation measure for the displacement of the Class 2 and Class 3 lands. As described above, the mitigation measures for fugitive dust involve the implementation of the existing Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan (pave roads, sweep dust and water roads) to reduce potential fugitive dust emissions. No further mitigation measures are required. 6-9

13 LOT 10, CON 10 LOT 9, CON 10 dist/ LOT 8, CON 10 Cc-b/3D 2!<!< 3 Bc-b/2W 4!<!<!< 5 Cc-b/3D 6!< 1 Bc-b/2W!< 7!< 14 Cc-b/3D!< 13!< 8 Telfer Road!< 15!< 16!< 9 LOT 10, CON 9!< 17!< 18 LOT 9, CON 9 Bc-b/2W!< 12!< 11!< 10 LOT 8, CON 9 Cc-b/3D!< 29!< 28!< 27!<!< 26 19!< 25!< Cc-b/3D!< 20 24!< 23!< Bc-b/2W 21!< 22!< 30 Cc-b/3D dist/!< 31 dist/ Cc-b/3D!< 32 Rokeby Line LOT 10, CON 8 LOT 9, CON 8 LOT 8, CON 8 ² m :7,000 UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83 Legend!< Soil Inspection Locations Roads Property Boundaries Shallow Alternative Entombment 2 Off-site Alternative Soil Polygon Boundaries Woods (MNR) Soil Code Slope code CLI Class Cc-b/3D CLI Subclass Soil Code Bc = Brookston Clay Cc = Caistor Clay Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Subclass Code D = Dense Soil Conditions W = Excess Moisture Slope Code Aa = % Bb = % where lower case = slope length < 50 m and upper case = slope length > 50 m Lambton Landfill Expansion Soil Survey Soil Survey Canada Land Inventory Canada Land Inventory Shallow Entombment Off-site Alternative Alternative 2 May 2014 Project Figure 6-1

14 Table 6-2 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Agriculture Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Key Design Considerations & Future Baseline Considerations & Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects Agriculture Agricultural Resources Displacement of high quality agricultural lands. All on-site lands are considered to be disturbed and are not rated under the CLI. The southern property boundary may be required to move 153 m south to be consistent with the buffer requirements of the existing zoning by-law. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. Potential 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 (Not Rated) if the southern property boundary is required to move 153 m south. None required. Net loss 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 if southern property boundary is required to move south to accommodate setback. Agricultural operational impacts. Particulate (dust) emissions from landfill. Nuisance caused by weeds due to exposed site area and berms. Construction activities will require the movement of soil and the operation of large construction vehicles. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. Fugitive dust emissions during construction from construction activities and the operation of construction vehicles. Minimal potential effects from weed growth on the interior portion of the excavated berm. Implement the Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan as required to minimize effects from dust generated during construction (i.e., pave roads, sweep dust and water roads to reduce dust accumulation). Net effects on agricultural operations from fugitive dust emissions will be avoided or minimized through implementation of the Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. Table 6-3 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Agriculture Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Key Design Considerations & Future Baseline Considerations & Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects Agriculture Agricultural Resources Displacement of high quality agricultural lands. Assumes that entire study area used for landfilling and associated facilities including berms. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. Loss of 45.0 ha of Class 2 lands and 73.8 ha of Class 3 lands and 3.5 ha of Disturbed Lands. None required. Net loss of 45.0 ha of Class 2 lands and 73.8 ha of Class 3 lands and 3.5 ha of Disturbed Lands. Agricultural operational impacts. Particulate (dust) emissions from landfill. Nuisance caused by weeds due to exposed site area and berms. Assumes that entire study area used for landfilling and associated facilities including berms. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. Fugitive dust emissions during construction from construction activities and the operation of construction vehicles. Potential weed growth on newly created berms. Implement the Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan as required to minimize effects from dust generated during construction (i.e., pave roads, sweep dust and water roads to reduce dust accumulation). Cover newly created berms (erosion control matting and seeding) and to reduce the potential for weed growth. Net effects on agricultural operations from fugitive dust emissions and weed growth on the new berms will be avoided or minimized through implementation of the Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan and through covering the new berms with erosion control matting and seeding. 6-11

15 Extended Site Life If the facility remains in operation beyond 25 years, the results of the net effects assessment is not anticipated to change as effects associated with the worst-case scenario have already been assessed and the maximum impact on agriculture is expected to occur during construction of either alternative Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources The archaeological and cultural heritage net effects analysis utilized the findings of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (Appendix D3, Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and Appendix D4, Cultural Heritage Assessment Report) and the Conceptual Design Report (Appendix E) to evaluate the two landfill expansion alternatives, in accordance with the methodology as outlined in the approved ToR. The archaeology and cultural heritage evaluation reviewed the presence of known archaeological resources and potential effects on archaeological resources in addition to the presence of built / cultural heritage resources onsite and in the vicinity, and finally the potential effects to cultural heritage resources. Consideration of the maximum predicted waste receipt levels and the maximum impact stage or worst-case scenario does not influence the net effects analysis or comparative evaluation regarding archaeology and cultural heritage resources. Effects on archaeology and cultural heritage resources are assessed based on the location and design of the facility as it is illustrated in the Conceptual Design Report rather than the construction or operation of the facility. The following section details the net effects analysis as it relates to the archaeology and cultural heritage discipline (Appendix F2, Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Report). Table 6-4 and Table 6-5 provide a summary of the findings Alternative 1 A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and Cultural Heritage Assessment Report were prepared in 2009 (Appendix D3) and submitted to the MTCS. The results indicate that there are no known archaeological resources in the study area and archaeological potential is present only within a small area (approximately 6 ha) in the southeast corner of the study area. As such, there is the potential for loss or disturbance of lands with potential for archaeological resources in the portion of this property proposed for construction and operation activities. 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. One cultural heritage resource is located within the study area, the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery. There are no impacts or encroachment anticipated near the pioneer cemetery and as such mitigation measures are not required. Telfer Road, an identified cultural heritage landscape, is located adjacent to Alternative 1 and this cultural heritage landscape also includes part of the land immediately adjacent to and running the length of the road. The Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape, as depicted on Figure 6-2, extends from just north of the southern limit of the Alternative 1 study area to the southern boundary of the Alternative 2 study area; no effects on the cultural heritage landscape are anticipated from construction or operation of Alternative 1. There are also no effects to designated, commemorated, inventoried cultural heritage resources as none are present within the study area. 6-12

16 Telfer Road Rokeby Line Produced by AECOM under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright Queens Printer 2012 Orthophotography: 2010 ² Meters UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83 Legend Archaeological Study Area Cultural Resources Cultural Heritage Resource, Telfer Rd Pioneer Cemetery Cultural Heritage Landscape, Telfer Rd Lambton Landfill Expansion Cultural Resoures and Archaeological Potential May 2014 Project Figure

17 Alternative 2 The results of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment indicate that there are no known archaeological resources in the Alternative 2 study area; however, the entire ha study area retains archaeological potential. As such, there is the potential for loss or disturbance of lands with potential for archaeological resources throughout the entire Alternative 2 study area. 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. The Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape is located adjacent to Alternative 2 and includes part of the land immediately adjacent to and running the length of the road located within the Alternative 2 study area. This cultural heritage landscape will be impacted by construction of the earth berm, the removal of vegetation and the resulting visual change. It is recommended that vegetation removal is minimized and that the earth berms are vegetated using historic plant material as much as possible to reduce effects associated with the visual change. Although Telfer Road has been identified as a cultural heritage roadscape, it is not considered a unique resource and 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. The Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is considered in the vicinity of Alternative 2; however, no alterations to the cemetery are anticipated and no mitigation measures are recommended. Finally, there are also no effects to designated, commemorated, inventoried cultural heritage resources as none are present within the study area. 6-14

18 Table 6-4 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources Environmental Component Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Criteria Indicators Key Design Considerations & Majority of Alternative 1 study area is already disturbed with the exception of a small area (approximately 6 ha) in the southeast corner. Majority of Alternative 1 study area is already disturbed with the exception of a small area (approximately 6 ha) in the southeast corner. The existing entrance to the site will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. Future Baseline Considerations & Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects Archaeological Resources Presence of known archaeological resources. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. No potential effects on known archaeological resources as none are present in the Alternative 1 study area. None required. No net effects on known archaeological resources. Potential effects on archaeological potential. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. Potential loss or disturbance of a portion of the property in the southeast corner of the study area with archaeological potential. Conduct a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment in the undisturbed areas where disturbance will occur to confirm if any archaeological resources are present. None required. Potential net effects on areas with archaeological potential will be avoided or mitigated through conducting a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. One cultural heritage resource, Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is located in the Alternative 1 study area and one cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road, is located in the south end of the Alternative 1 study area and includes land immediately adjacent within the study area. Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape is located to the west of the study area at the south end of the Alternative 1 study area and includes land immediately adjacent within the study area. Above Ground Cultural Heritage Resources Presence of built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. One cultural heritage resource, Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is located in the Alternative 1 study area and one cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road, is located in the south end of the Alternative 1 study area and includes land immediately adjacent within the study area. Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape is located to the west of the study area at the south end of the Alternative 1 study area and includes land immediately adjacent within the study area. There are no designated, commemorate or inventoried cultural heritage resources in the vicinity of the Alternative 1 study area. Potential effects on the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery and the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape are not anticipated as the existing entrance to the site will continue to be used with no resulting direct or indirect effects on the cultural heritage resources. 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. The existing entrance to the site will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. None required. Potential effects on above ground cultural heritage resources. Effects can include direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts can include displacement through removal, which indirect impacts can include disturbance through the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements not in keeping with the surrounding setting. The existing entrance to the site will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. None required. 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. 6-15

19 Table 6-5 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources Environmental Component Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Criteria Indicators Key Design Considerations & Alternative 2 study area (approximately ha) is undisturbed. Future Baseline Considerations & No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects Archaeological Resources Presence of known archaeological resources. No potential effects on known archaeological resources as none are present in the Alternative 2 study area. Potential loss or disturbance of land with archaeological potential throughout the Alternative 2 study area. None required. No net effects on known archaeological resources are anticipated. Potential effects on archaeological potential. Alternative 2 study area (approximately ha) is undisturbed. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. Conduct a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment in the undisturbed areas where disturbance will occur to confirm if any archaeological resources are present. None required. Potential net effects on areas with archaeological potential will be avoided or mitigated through conducting a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape is located to the west of the study area and includes the adjacent land in the study area. Above Ground Cultural Heritage Resources Presence of built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes. The existing entrance to the site located in the Alternative 1 study area will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. Construction of an earth berm around the site perimeter will have a direct effect on the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape. The existing entrance to the site located in the Alternative 1 study area will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. Construction of an earth berm around the site perimeter will have a direct effect on the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. One cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road is located to the immediate west of the Alternative 2 study area and includes the adjacent land in the study area. 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. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. One cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road is located to the immediate west of the Alternative 2 study area and the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is situated in the vicinity within the Alternative 1 study area. None required. One cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road is located to the immediate west of the Alternative 2 study area and the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is situated in the vicinity within the Alternative 1 study area. Potential effects on above ground cultural heritage resources. Effects can include direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts can include displacement through removal, which indirect impacts can include disturbance through the introduction of visual, audible or atmospheric elements not in keeping with the surrounding setting. The existing entrance to the site located in the Alternative 1 study area will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. Construction of an earth berm around the site perimeter will have a direct effect on the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape. No change to future baseline considerations and assumptions relative to current. Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape will be impacted by construction of the earth berm, the removal of vegetation and the resulting visual change. It is recommended that vegetation removal is minimized and that the earth berms are re-vegetated using historic plant material as much as possible to reduce effects associated with the visual change. Although Telfer Road has been identified as a cultural heritage roadscape due to its narrow right-ofway and shoulders evocative of 19 th century origins, it is not considered a unique resource and 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. 6-16

20 Extended Site Life If the facility remains in operation beyond 25 years, the results of the net effects assessment is not anticipated to change as the length of site life has no bearing on archaeological or cultural heritage resources Atmospheric Environment (Air Quality and Odour) The air quality and odour net effects analysis utilized the findings of the Air Quality & Odour Existing Conditions Report, the ESDM Reports (Appendix D5, Air Quality & Odour Existing Conditions Report), conditions associated with the currently approved landfill at closure, and the Conceptual Design Report (Appendix E) to evaluate the two landfill expansion alternatives, in accordance with the methodology as outlined in the approved ToR. As part of the effects assessment, an ESDM Report (Appendix B and C of the Air Quality and Odour Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Report in Appendix F3) was prepared for each alternative to predict the potential maximum point-of-impingement (POI) concentrations based on the operating conditions where all facility air emission sources would be operating simultaneously at their individual maximum rates of production. The facility was assessed from the ground up to determine all potential sources of air emissions. These sources are documented in detail in the ESDM Reports, and include the Thermal Desorber Unit (TDU) and support processes, facility laboratory exhausts, the incinerator stack and pre-treatment system tanks, the land disposal restrictions (LDR) baghouse and fugitive emission sources. The facility emission sources and locations are shown on Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4 for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, respectively. Each source was assessed individually to determine potential air contaminant emissions and in each case an appropriate estimation methodology was selected. Methods used include stack testing, mass balance calculations, engineering calculations and published emission factors. Potential compounds emitted from the facility include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), products of combustion, particulate matter, metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A complete listing of all compounds is provided in the ESDM Reports. The potential maximum emission rates for each contaminant emitted from the facility sources were calculated in accordance with the MOE s publication Summary of Standards and Guidelines to Support Ontario Regulation 419/05 Air Pollution Local Air Quality, dated April The AERMOD air dispersion model, used in the ESDM Reports, calculates the predicted maximum off-site POI concentration for each contaminant. The model uses a grid that considers the facility property boundary and any receptor within 5 km of the property boundary. An additional receptor grid was used at the Aamjiwnaang First Nation lands to identify the predicted maximum off-site POI concentration for each contaminant at any potential receptors within the Aamjiwnaang First Nation boundary. Further details on the receptor grids used in the AERMOD air dispersion modelling are provided in the ESDM Reports. The air quality and odour evaluation reviewed the predicted off-site POI concentrations of indicator compounds and the number of off-site receptors for air quality in addition to the predicted off-site odour concentrations and the number of off-site receptors for odour. The maximum impact stage or worst-case scenario for air quality and odour is described below. This is a very conservative analysis and resulted in POI concentrations below the standards in the O. Reg. 419/05 criteria. For Alternative 1, the on-site haul roads will change over time depending on where the working landfill face is located. Potential road configurations for Alternative 1 at various points in the landfill life (depending on where the working face would be) were identified. These possible configurations were modelled and the worst-case 6-17

21 configuration was identified based on the results. The potential worst-case scenario for road dust was identified to occur when the working landfill face is located to the west of the existing landfill face. The worst-case on-site truck routes for Alternative 1 are presented on Figure 6-3. This was incorporated into the ESDM Report to evaluate the potential worst-case future off-site concentrations for Alternative 1. For Alternative 2, the on-site haul roads will also change over time depending on where the working landfill face is located. The potential worst-case scenario for road dust was identified as the beginning of the landfill life when the working landfill face will be located at the point furthest south from the existing facility (longest haul road); this was incorporated into the ESDM Report to assess the potential worst-case future off-site concentrations for Alternative 2. Under this alternative, the leachate ponds and the carbon pits would be relocated south of the existing facility. These sources emit volatile organic compounds which are indicator compounds assessed in the ESDM Reports. The worst-case on-site truck routes for Alternative 2, along with the locations of the leachate pond and carbon pits are presented on Figure 6-4. When considering potential worst-case impacts for either alternative in Study Area 1, separate Emission Summary Tables in the ESDM Reports were developed to show predicted impacts at ten northern receptors and six southern receptors for each alternative, based on their location in relation to the facility. The data collected in the annual fenceline monitoring program was used to estimate the maximum impacts from fugitive emissions sources at the site. For Alternative 1, the northern receptors are located in close proximity to the facility s fugitive emission sources; as such, it is conservative to assume that 100% of the fugitives measured by the fenceline monitors in this area could impact these receptors. The southern receptors are located at a significant distance to the south from these fugitive sources. An area source screening model was used to estimate the additional dispersion due to the increased separation distance from the fugitive emission sources. Based on the results of this screening model, it was conservatively assumed that approximately 20% of the fugitives measured by the fenceline monitors could impact the southern receptors. For Alternative 2, the landfill working face, carbon pits, and leachate pond will be moved to the south, closer to the southern receptors. The northern receptors will continue to be exposed to fugitive emissions from the facility process sources, including the TDU fugitives. It was estimated that 60% of the fugitive emissions could impact the southern receptors, and 40% of the fugitive emissions could impact the northern receptors. The following section details the net effects analysis as it relates to the air quality and odour discipline (Appendix F3, Air Quality & Odour Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Report). Table 6-6 and Table 6-7 provide a summary of the findings. 6-18

22 (008)GIS-WA005 May 23, 2014 ² m :4,100 UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83 Legend Clean Harbors Canada Inc. Lambton Landfill Expansion Air Emission Source Location Plan Alternative 1 December May Project Figure 6-33

23 (008)GIS-WA006 May 23, 2014 ² m :8,200 UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83 Legend Clean Harbors Canada Inc. Lambton Landfill Expansion Air Emission Source Location Plan Alternative 2 December May Project Figure 6-44

24 Alternative 1 There are ten residential receptors that have been considered northern receptors based on their location in relation to the facility. The ten northern receptors would be most impacted by Alternative 1 (Figure 6-5). However, the northern receptors that are closest to the proposed landfill are already in the vicinity of the existing landfill, and the net change in effects between Alternative 1 and the existing conditions at these receptors is not considered significant. The six residential receptors considered southern receptors based on their location in relation to the facility would be less impacted by Alternative 1 than the northern receptors. The predicted off-site POI concentrations of over 150 indicator compounds assessed for Alternative 1 were compared against criteria listed in the Ministry publication Summary of Standards and Guidelines to Support Ontario Regulation 419/05 Air Pollution Local Air Quality, dated April The air emissions from the facility result in predicted POI concentrations of indicator compounds that are all below their respective O. Reg. 419/05 criteria. The facility emission sources and locations are shown on Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4 for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, respectively. Minimal fugitive dust emissions from short-term construction activities would occur as no cover would be placed over the existing landfill until the working landfill cell is complete (approximately three years for the pre-1986 subcell area). Actual landfilling activity would be the same as existing conditions. There would be some soil movement occurring on a monthly basis. Soil and earth moving activities have the potential to create fugitive dust emissions, which would need to be addressed by the facility as part of their Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. Alternative 1 would be mainly above grade and the average cell excavation depth would be 3-4 m, with a total area of 55.6 m 2. This equates to about 2 million m 3 of soil to be excavated. The cover is to be HDPE with approximately 1 m of soil cover, which totals approximately 550,000 m 3 of cover to be placed. Under normal operations, there are currently no off-site odour concentrations from the facility. As Clean Harbors will continue with their existing practices for managing odour, it is anticipated that there will be no off-site odour concentrations from the facility under normal operations. 6-21

25 (008)GIS-WA003 Plank Rd!(!(!(!( Petrolia Line 1 ug/m³!(!(!( 0.5 ug/m³ 1 ug/m³ 1.5 ug/m³ 2 ug/m³ 3 ug/m³!( Telfer Rd 1.5 ug/m³ 1 ug/m³ Brigden Rd!(!(!(!(!( Rokeby Line!(!(!( Source: MNR NRVIS, Produced by CRA under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Printer 2014 ² Meters :20,000 UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83 Existing Lambton Facility and On-site Study Alternative Areas 1 for Vertical Expansion On-site Alternative Onsite Study Area for Shallow Entombment Off-site Alternative Legend!(!( North Residential Receptor South Residential Receptor Total Suspended Particulate Annual Contour Plot Lambton Clean Harbors Landfill Canada Expansion Inc. Total Suspended Particulate Annual Contour Plot Alternative 1 May 2014 Project Figure 6-55

26 Alternative 2 There are six residential receptors that have been considered southern receptors based on their location in relation to the facility. The six southern receptors would be most impacted by Alternative 2 (Figure 6-6). It is important to note that for Alternative 2, the southern receptors are not currently in the vicinity of the existing landfill, and the net change in effects between the existing conditions and Alternative 2 at these receptors is, therefore, more significant than for the northern receptors. The ten residential receptors considered northern receptors based on their location in relation to the facility would be less impacted by Alternative 2 than the southern receptors. Similar to Alternative 1, predicted off-site POI concentrations of over 150 indicator compounds assessed for Alternative 2 were all below their respective criteria listed in O. Reg. 419/05. For Alternative 2, all of the southern berm would be constructed initially except for approximately 350 m of the eastern portion. The berm, stormwater pond and ditches, relocation of the northwest pond, south process water pond, and south leachate pond would all be a part of initial construction. Cells would be excavated as required based on the landfilling rate. Soil and earth moving activities have the potential to create fugitive dust emissions, which would need to be addressed by the facility as part of their Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. Alternative 2 would require a complete cell excavation and 5.1 m of cover placement. The proposed area of Alternative 2 is 38.7 ha. The average cell excavation depth would be 11.5 m. This equates to about 4.4 million m 3 of soil to be moved and about 2 million m 3 of cover to be placed. In addition, approximately 368,000 m 3 of this soil will be moved to the perimeter of the site to form berms. Under this alternative, there would also be potential for stockpiles of excavated material. Stockpiles may generate fugitive dust emissions because they are susceptible to wind erosion. The facility would need to include management and mitigation of the stockpiles in the Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. As such, Alternative 2 would require additional mitigation measures with regard to fugitive dust than Alternative 1. Under normal operations, there are currently no off-site odour concentrations from the facility. As Clean Harbors intends to continue with their existing practices for managing odour, it is anticipated that there will continue to be no off-site odour concentrations from the facility under normal operations. 6-23

27 (008)GIS-WA ug/m³ 2 ug/m³ 2.5 ug/m³ 3.5 ug/m³ 1.5 ug/m³ Plank Rd!(!(!(!( Petrolia Line!(!(!(!( 3 ug/m³ 4 ug/m³!( 1 ug/m³!( 0.5 ug/m³ Telfer Rd Brigden Rd 1 ug/m³!(!(!( Rokeby Line!( 1 ug/m³!(!( Source: MNR NRVIS, Produced by CRA under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Printer 2014 ² Meters :20,318 UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83 Existing Lambton Facility and On-site Study Alternative Areas 1for Vertical Expansion On-site Alternative Onsite Study Area for Shallow Entombment Off-site Alternative Legend!(!( North Residential Receptor South Residential Receptor Total Suspended Particulate Annual Contour Plot Clean Harbors Canada Inc. Lambton Landfill Expansion Total Suspended Particulate Annual Contour Plot Alternative 2 May 2014 Project Figure 6-66

28 Table 6-6 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Air Quality and Odour Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Key Design Considerations & Future Baseline Considerations & Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects Atmospheric Environment Air Emissions Predicted off-site POI concentrations (µg/m 3 ) of indicator compounds. Existing facility process sources of air emissions will remain unchanged. Key design considerations used for evaluating air quality impacts relate to the location of the proposed landfill, the on-site truck routes and the associated construction activities. Some soil movement will occur on a monthly basis. The air dispersion modelling in the ESDM Reports include the existing facility sources and the proposed landfill. The existing landfill has not been included in the evaluation, as the assumption is that it will be closed and capped with no further emissions. Predicted off-site POI concentrations of over 150 indicator compounds assessed were compared against MOE criteria and resulted in predicted POI concentrations of indicator compounds that are all below their respective standards. Under Alternative 1, the potential impacts at the ten northern residential receptors are higher than the potential impacts at these receptors under Alternative 2. Soil and earth moving activities have the potential to create fugitive dust emissions during the short-term construction activities. As all POI concentrations of indicator compounds are below their respective standards, no mitigation measures are required. Continue with the implementation of the existing Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan to manage and mitigate potential emissions of particulate. Although Alternative 1 has slightly higher potential off-site POI concentrations at the northern receptors than Alternative 2, these receptors are already in the vicinity of the existing landfill, and the net change in effects between the existing conditions and Alternative 1 at these receptors is not considered significant. All potential off-site air quality impacts from the facility comply with the MOE health and risk based Air Quality Standards. Furthermore, fugitive dust emissions will be mitigated through the implementation of the Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. As such, no net effects from air emissions are anticipated. Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses / farms and institutions). AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict potential effects on air quality at receptors within 5 km of the study area boundary in addition to receptors located within the Aamjiwnaang First Nations lands. Ten key residential receptors were identified within the vicinity of the proposed landfill. The air dispersion modelling in the ESDM Reports include the existing facility sources and the proposed landfill. The existing landfill has not been included in the evaluation, as the assumption is that it will be closed and capped with no further emissions. There are ten residential receptors located in proximity to the proposed landfill. None required. Although the total number of receptors potentially affected by offsite POI concentrations is higher for Alternative 1 than for Alternative 2, the receptors that are closest to the proposed landfill are already in the vicinity of the existing landfill, and the net change in effects between the existing conditions and Alternative 1 at these receptors is not considered significant. Odour Predicted off-site odour concentrations (µg/m 3 and odour units). Clean Harbors maintains and will continue to implement the existing Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. Clean Harbors will continue to implement the existing Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. Under normal operations, there are no off-site odour concentrations from the facility and therefore, there are no potential effects anticipated. Clean Harbors will continue to implement the Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. Under normal operations, there are currently no off-site odour impacts from the facility. As such, no net effects from odour are anticipated. Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses / farms and institutions). AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict potential effects on air quality at receptors within 5 km of the study area boundary in addition to receptors located within the Aamjiwnaang First Nations lands. Ten key residential receptors were identified within the vicinity of the proposed landfill. The air dispersion modelling in the ESDM Reports include the existing facility sources and the proposed landfill. The existing landfill has not been included in the evaluation, as the assumption is that it will be closed and capped with no further emissions. There are ten residential receptors located in proximity to the proposed landfill. None required. Under normal operations, there are currently no off-site odour impacts from the facility; however, under an upset scenario in the future, potential off-site odour concentrations would be the same for either alternative. As such, no net effects from odour are anticipated. 6-25

29 Table 6-7 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Air Quality and Odour Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Key Design Considerations & Future Baseline Considerations & Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects Atmospheric Environment Air Emissions Predicted off-site point of impingement concentrations (µg/m 3 ) of indicator compounds. Existing facility process sources of air emissions will remain unchanged. Key design considerations used for evaluating air quality impacts relate to the location of the proposed landfill, the on-site truck routes and the associated construction activities. All of the southern berm would be constructed initially except for approximately 350 m of the eastern portion. The berm, stormwater pond and ditches, relocation of the northwest pond, south process water pond, and south leachate pond would all be a part of initial construction. Cells would be excavated as required based on the landfilling rate. The air dispersion modelling in the ESDM Reports include the existing facility sources and the proposed landfill. The existing landfill has not been included in the evaluation, as the assumption is that it will be closed and capped with no further emissions. Predicted off-site POI concentrations of over 150 indicator compounds assessed were compared against MOE criteria and resulted in predicted POI concentrations of indicator compounds that are all below their respective standards. Under Alternative 2, the potential impacts at the six southern residential receptors are higher than the potential impacts at these receptors under Alternative 1. Soil and earth moving activities have the potential to create fugitive dust emissions during the short-term construction activities and potential off-site POI impacts from construction activities would be higher for Alternative 2 as a greater degree of construction is required. As all POI concentrations of indicator compounds are below their respective standards, no mitigation measures are required. Continue with the implementation of the existing Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan to manage and mitigate potential emissions of particulate. Under Alternative 2, the potential impacts at the six southern residential receptors are higher than the potential impacts at these receptors under Alternative 1. The net change in effects between the existing conditions and Alternative 2 at these receptors is considered significant. All potential off-site air quality impacts from the facility comply with the MOE health and risk based Air Quality Standards and fugitive dust emissions will be mitigated through the implementation of the Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. As such, no net effects from air emissions are anticipated. Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses / farms and institutions). AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict potential effects on air quality at receptors within 5 km of the study area boundary in addition to receptors located within the Aamjiwnaang First Nations lands. Six key residential receptors were identified within the vicinity of the proposed landfill. The air dispersion modelling in the ESDM Reports include the existing facility sources and the proposed landfill. The existing landfill has not been included in the evaluation, as the assumption is that it will be closed and capped with no further emissions. There are six residential receptors located in proximity to the proposed landfill. None required. Although the total number of receptors potentially affected by offsite POI concentrations is higher for Alternative 1 than for Alternative 2, the southern receptors that are closest to the proposed landfill are not currently in the vicinity of the existing landfill, and the net change in effects between the existing conditions and Alternative 2 at these receptors is considered more significant than the net change in effects at the northern receptors. Odour Predicted off-site odour concentrations (µg/m 3 and odour units). Clean Harbors maintains and will continue to implement the existing Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. Clean Harbors will continue to implement the existing Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. Under normal operations, there are no off-site odour concentrations from the facility and, therefore, there are no potential effects anticipated. Clean Harbors will continue to implement the existing Fugitive Dust and Odour Best Management Plan. Under normal operations, there are currently no off-site odour impacts from the facility. As such, no net effects from odour are anticipated. Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses / farms and institutions). AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict potential effects on air quality at receptors within 5 km of the study area boundary in addition to receptors located within the Aamjiwnaang First Nations lands. Six key residential receptors were identified within the vicinity of the proposed landfill. The air dispersion modelling in the ESDM Reports include the existing facility sources and the proposed landfill. The existing landfill has not been included in the evaluation, as the assumption is that it will be closed and capped with no further emissions. There are six residential receptors located in proximity to the proposed landfill. None required. Under normal operations, there are currently no off-site odour impacts from the facility; however, under an upset scenario in the future, potential off-site odour concentrations would be the same for either alternative. As such, no net effects from odour are anticipated. 6-26

30 Extended Site Life It is possible that actual waste volumes received annually at the Lambton landfill might be lower than the volumes predicted and, if so, that the landfill might operate beyond the 25 year planning period. As such, it is also important to consider the net environmental effects in the context of the landfill lasting beyond 25 years. The ESDM Reports are based on the maximum annual projection of 200,000 tonnes per year, and ultimately are linked to the individual maximum processing rates of the waste treatment units. These potential worst-case net effects are, therefore, conservative when considering the potential net effects for an extended site life at an average waste receipt rate of 130,000 tonnes per year Noise The noise net effects analysis utilized the findings of the Noise Existing Conditions Report, the AARs (Appendix D6, Noise Existing Conditions Report), conditions associated with the currently approved landfill at closure, and the Conceptual Design Report (Appendix E) to evaluate the two landfill expansion alternatives, in accordance with the methodology as outlined in the approved ToR. As part of the net effects assessment, an AAR was prepared for each alternative and assessed against the daytime noise limit of 55 dba for landfill operations as defined by the MOE s Noise Guidelines for Landfill Sites document N-1. The landfill activities for Alternatives 1 and 2 are below the 55 dba noise limit at the 14 off-site residential dwellings within the study area (see Figures 6-7 and 6-8). The AARs for each alternative were evaluated based on the principal of the predictable worst-case scenario of the preliminary development concept and the maximum equipment operating capacity. The net effects analysis was carried out for the maximum impact stage or worst-case scenario for noise as well as a typical operating scenario based on the on-site truck traffic data collected as outlined in the itrans Proposed Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Transportation Assessment, dated September 2009 (itrans Report). The itrans Report presents significantly lower hourly onsite truck traffic than the truck volumes evaluated under the worst-case. Based on the itrans Report, traffic to and from the facility will not differ for the two alternatives. An AAR was prepared for each alternative. The AARs represent the maximum worst-case scenario for each alternative, based on the maximum equipment operating capacity and the worst-case on-site truck routes as previously described. In addition, the typical operating scenario has also been evaluated to provide a description of potential noise levels associated with the typical daily operation of the facility. This was not included in the facility AARs because environmental permitting is approved based on the worst-case operating conditions, i.e., maximum number of trucks. The noise evaluation reviewed the predicted off-site noise levels and the number of off-site receptors. The following section details the net effects analysis as it relates to the noise discipline (Appendix F4, Noise Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Report). Table 6-14 and Table 6-15 provide a summary of the findings. 6-27

31 (MEMO004)GIS-WA001 POR14 POR5 POR2 POR3 POR4 POR1 POR13 POR12 POR7 POR6 POR8 POR9 POR11 POR10 Source: MNR NRVIS, Produced by CRA under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Printer 2013 Legend ² Noise Study Area Residential Receptor Existing Lambton Facility and On-site 50 dba Study Alternative Areas 1 for Vertical Expansion On-site Alternative 45 dba Meters Onsite Study Area for Shallow 40 dba Entombment Alternative 2 Off-site Alternative 1:20,000 UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83 Clean Lambton Harbors Landfill Canada Expansion Inc. Cumulative Noise Impact Contours Daytime Alternative Alternative Method 1 1 November May Project Figure Figure 6-7 3

32 (MEMO004)GIS-WA002 POR14 POR5 POR2 POR3 POR4 POR1 POR13 POR12 POR7 POR6 POR8 POR9 POR11 POR10 Source: MNR NRVIS, Produced by CRA under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Printer 2013 Legend ² Noise Study Area Residential Receptor Existing Lambton Facility and On-site 50 dba Study Alternative Areas 1 for Vertical Expansion On-site Alternative 45 dba Meters Onsite Study Area for Shallow 40 dba Entombment Alternative 2 Off-site Alternative 1:20,000 UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83 Clean Harbors Canada Inc. Lambton Landfill Expansion Cumulative Noise Impact Contours Daytime Alternative Alternative Method 2 2 November May Project Figure 6-84

33 Alternative 1 Construction noise would be limited to the daytime period. The off-site noise impact generated from construction equipment such as bulldozers and excavators that will be used to construct the new landfill cells will benefit from the existing perimeter berms, which would block direct line-of-sight and reduce the temporary construction noise impacts at the off-site receiver locations along Petrolia Line. Construction and rehabilitation equipment will be operated in accordance with NPC-115 Construction Equipment Guideline dated October Any necessary pest control devices and equipment will be operated in accordance with the impulse and quasi-impulse limits defined in the Noise Guideline for Landfill Sites dated October A noise model was created to evaluate the construction noise impacts resulting from activities at the western cell (i.e., the cell where construction noise impacts would affect the most receptors). The receptors which would be affected the most by the construction noise impacts are POR1-5. The impacts are summarized in Table 6-8. Table 6-8 Construction Impact from Alternative 1 (Receptors to the North) Receptor ID Daytime Facility Operations including Current Landfill Operations Pre-Construction During Construction Net Effect POR dba 47.7 dba 1.1 dba POR dba 41.3 dba 0.4 dba POR dba 39.2 dba 0.3 dba POR dba 36.6 dba 0.3 dba POR dba 36.8 dba 1.4 dba The net effects for the worst-case cell construction location are below 1.5 dba, which is below the threshold of perception. The construction activities for Alternative 1 can be considered acoustically and environmentally insignificant. The cumulative daytime environmental noise impact predicted was 51 dba at the worst-case and most exposed Point of Reception (POR) 1. The landfill noise impact alone was calculated to be 50 dba at POR1, which is well below the applicable MOE landfill noise limit of 55 dba. This change in noise level is considered acoustically insignificant as the average human ear cannot detect a change of 1 dba in noise levels. The cumulative daytime environmental noise impact, which includes the existing operations as well as the Alternative 1 operations, predicted at all other residential dwellings is below 40 dba. Using the indicators summarized in Table 6-9, of the potentially affected 14 residential dwellings within the study area, the off-site environmental noise net effects from Alternative 1 was limited to the eight existing residential dwellings to the north (POR1 to POR5, and POR12 to POR14) as shown on Figure 6-7 by the 40 dba noise contour and tabulated below as per the AAR in the Noise Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Report (Appendix F4). These dwellings are presently exposed to the existing environmental noise from the facility, which ranges from 27 dba to 45 dba. The cumulative impact as a result of Alternative 1 will range from 32 dba to 51 dba. These dwellings also experience a higher background noise level generated by road traffic along Petrolia Line. 6-30

34 Table 6-9 Predicted Noise Impact from Alternative 1 (Worst-case Scenario) Receptor ID Existing Facility Operations excluding Landfill Landfill Operations Cumulative Daytime Impact MOE Limit Nighttime Impact MOE Limit Daytime Impact MOE Limit Daytime Impact POR (dba) 45 (dba) 39.7 (dba) 40 (dba) 49.7 (dba) 55 (dba) 50.9 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 30.4 (dba) 45 (dba) - 55 (dba) 31.9 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 29.2 (dba) 45 (dba) 38.3 (dba) 55 (dba) 39.0 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 25.6 (dba) 45 (dba) 36.4 (dba) 55 (dba) 36.9 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 30.0 (dba) 45 (dba) 32.7 (dba) 55 (dba) 35.9 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 26.9 (dba) 40 (dba) 38.5 (dba) 55 (dba) 38.9 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 26.0 (dba) 40 (dba) 30.3 (dba) 55 (dba) 32.2 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 24.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 29.6 (dba) 55 (dba) 31.2 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 25.9 (dba) 40 (dba) 27.4 (dba) 55 (dba) 30.5 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 24.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 29.3 (dba) 55 (dba) 31.1 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 25.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 27.9 (dba) 55 (dba) 30.7 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 25.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 28.9 (dba) 55 (dba) 31.0 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 26.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 31.0 (dba) 55 (dba) 32.8 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 27.6 (dba) 45 (dba) 34.9 (dba) 55 (dba) 36.2 (dba) The existing facility operations, which include incinerator fans, air blowers, baghouse and various fans, are expected to continue taking place during both daytime and nighttime hours, while landfill operations are expected to be conducted only during the daytime hours. Therefore, only daytime impacts were evaluated for the landfill operations. POR1 is expected to experience the highest noise impact from each individual set of operations. The logarithmic sum of the impacts presented above (44.9 dba for current operations and 49.7 dba for landfill operations) yields a cumulative impact of 51 dba. This represents a 6 dba (one-hour Leq basis) increase over the existing facility worst-case scenario for POR1, which is defined by the maximum number of landfill-bound trucks that can be on site in a given hour. Table 6-10 Predicted Noise Impact from Alternative 1 (Typical Scenario) Receptor ID Existing Facility Operations excluding Landfill Landfill Operations Cumulative Daytime Impact MOE Limit Nighttime Impact MOE Limit Daytime Impact MOE Limit Daytime Impact POR (dba) 45 (dba) 39.7 (dba) 40 (dba) 46.2 (dba) 55 (dba) 46.9 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 30.4 (dba) 45 (dba) 33.8 (dba) 55 (dba) 35.4 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 29.2 (dba) 45 (dba) 31.8 (dba) 55 (dba) 33.7 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 25.6 (dba) 45 (dba) 28.2 (dba) 55 (dba) 30.1 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 30.0 (dba) 45 (dba) 34.6 (dba) 55 (dba) 35.8 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 26.9 (dba) 40 (dba) 26.0 (dba) 55 (dba) 29.4 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 26.0 (dba) 40 (dba) 25.2 (dba) 55 (dba) 28.6 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 24.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 22.9 (dba) 55 (dba) 26.7 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 25.9 (dba) 40 (dba) 24.9 (dba) 55 (dba) 28.2 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 24.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 23.0 (dba) 55 (dba) 26.8 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 25.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 24.5 (dba) 55 (dba) 28.2 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 25.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 26.5 (dba) 55 (dba) 29.1 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 26.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 28.8 (dba) 55 (dba) 30.8 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 27.6 (dba) 45 (dba) 30.8 (dba) 55 (dba) 32.4 (dba) 6-31

35 Under typical operating conditions, POR1 will experience a 4 dba lower impact than the predicted worst-case scenario. The two impacts (50.9 dba and 46.9 dba) represent the noise exposure range experienced by this receptor Alternative 2 Construction noise would be limited to the daytime period. The off-site noise impact generated during construction activities would have direct line-of-sight noise exposure to residences located on Rokeby Line. Construction and rehabilitation equipment will be operated in accordance with NPC-115 Construction Equipment Guideline, dated October Any necessary pest control devices and equipment will be operated in accordance with the impulse and quasi-impulse limits defined in the Noise Guideline for Landfill Sites, dated October A noise model was created to evaluate the construction noise impacts resulting from activities at the southwest cell (i.e., the cell where construction noise impacts would affect the most receptors). The receptors which would be affected the most by the construction noise impacts are POR6-11. The impacts are summarized in Table Table 6-11 Construction Impact from Alternative 2 (Receptors to the South) Receptor ID Daytime Facility Operations including Current Landfill Operations Pre-Construction During Construction Net Effect POR (dba) 50.8 (dba) 13.2 (dba) POR (dba) 45.8 (dba) 9.3 (dba) POR (dba) 44.9 (dba) 9.5 (dba) POR (dba) 47.6 (dba) 11.8 (dba) POR (dba) 39.3 (dba) 5.6 (dba) POR (dba) 43.1 (dba) 8.3 (dba) The receptors to the south will experience a significant increase in noise impacts due to the close proximity of the construction equipment. The net increase at POR6 will be over 13 dba, which will be perceived as more than twice as loud. The cumulative daytime environmental noise impact predicted, including existing operations and future landfill operations, was 50 dba at the worst-case and most exposed receptor, POR1. The landfill noise impact alone was calculated to be 48 dba at POR1, which is well below the applicable MOE landfill noise limit of 55 dba. Of the potentially affected 14 residential dwellings within the study area, the off-site environmental noise impact from Alternative 2 was limited to the five existing residential dwellings to the south, as shown on Figure 6-8, and tabulated below as per the AAR in the Noise Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Report (Appendix F4). These dwellings are presently exposed to an environmental noise impact of < 30 dba from the existing facility due to the 1 km of land that provides a sufficient buffer from the facility. Background noise is also predominantly natural sound. Therefore, these five residences (POR6 to 9 and POR11) would experience a significant and elevated environmental noise exposure of between 42 dba and 48 dba under the Alternative 2 development. The off-site noise impact would increase more than 10 dba; a greater than 10 dba change in sound is perceived as twice as loud. 6-32

36 Table 6-12 Predicted Noise Impact from Alternative 2 (Worst-case Scenario) Receptor ID Existing Facility Operations excluding Landfill Landfill Operations Cumulative Daytime Impact MOE Limit Nighttime Impact MOE Limit Daytime Impact MOE Limit Daytime Impact POR (dba) 45 (dba) 39.8 (dba) 40 (dba) 47.5 (dba) 55 (dba) 49.5 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 32.6 (dba) 45 (dba) 34.5 (dba) 55 (dba) 37.5 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 30.5 (dba) 45 (dba) 32.9 (dba) 55 (dba) 35.6 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 26.6 (dba) 45 (dba) 31.2 (dba) 55 (dba) 33.2 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 29.9 (dba) 45 (dba) 36.9 (dba) 55 (dba) 38.4 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 27.8 (dba) 40 (dba) 47.4 (dba) 55 (dba) 47.5 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 26.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 43.1 (dba) 55 (dba) 43.2 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 24.7 (dba) 40 (dba) 41.5 (dba) 55 (dba) 41.6 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 25.2 (dba) 40 (dba) 44.2 (dba) 55 (dba) 44.3 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 24.8 (dba) 40 (dba) 39.6 (dba) 55 (dba) 39.8 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 24.6 (dba) 40 (dba) 41.6 (dba) 55 (dba) 41.7 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 25.9 (dba) 40 (dba) 32.4 (dba) 55 (dba) 33.9 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 27.1 (dba) 40 (dba) 33.4 (dba) 55 (dba) 35.0 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 27.4 (dba) 45 (dba) 34.8 (dba) 55 (dba) 36.1 (dba) Table 6-13 Predicted Noise Impact from Alternative 2 (Typical Scenario) Receptor ID Existing Facility Operations excluding Landfill Landfill Operations Cumulative Daytime Impact MOE Limit Nighttime Impact MOE Limit Daytime Impact MOE Limit Daytime POR (dba) 45 (dba) 39.8 (dba) 40 (dba) 42.1 (dba) 55 (dba) 43.8 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 32.6 (dba) 45 (dba) 29.2 (dba) 55 (dba) 34.2 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 30.5 (dba) 45 (dba) 27.6 (dba) 55 (dba) 32.2 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 26.6 (dba) 45 (dba) 26.1 (dba) 55 (dba) 29.3 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 29.9 (dba) 45 (dba) 31.4 (dba) 55 (dba) 33.6 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 27.8 (dba) 40 (dba) 42.1 (dba) 55 (dba) 42.3 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 26.4 (dba) 40 (dba) 37.9 (dba) 55 (dba) 38.2 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 24.7 (dba) 40 (dba) 36.2 (dba) 55 (dba) 36.5 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 25.2 (dba) 40 (dba) 39.1 (dba) 55 (dba) 39.3 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 24.8 (dba) 40 (dba) 35.6 (dba) 55 (dba) 36.0 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 24.6 (dba) 40 (dba) 36.7 (dba) 55 (dba) 37.0 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 25.9 (dba) 40 (dba) 27.5 (dba) 55 (dba) 30.0 (dba) POR (dba) 45 (dba) 27.1 (dba) 40 (dba) 28.6 (dba) 55 (dba) 31.1 (dba) POR (dba) 50 (dba) 27.4 (dba) 45 (dba) 29.3 (dba) 55 (dba) 31.3 (dba) The cumulative noise exposure range for Alternative 2 for POR1 is 5.7 dba, which is lower than Alternative 1 as the landfill operations to the south will have less of an impact on POR1. However, the noise exposure range for all the receptors to the south will significantly increase. 6-33

37 Table 6-14 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Noise Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Key Design Considerations & Future Baseline Considerations & Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects Atmospheric Environment Noise Predicted site-related noise levels (dba). Existing facility process sources of noise emissions will remain unchanged. Key design considerations used for evaluating noise impacts relate to the location of the proposed landfill, the on-site truck routes and the associated construction activities. It is assumed that the study area is influenced by the following noise sources: Steady state noise from the existing Clean Harbors Lambton facility (i.e., incinerator fans, air blowers, baghouse and various fans, and landfill operations); Impulse noise from the incinerator baghouse controls (i.e., short-term, repeating noises associated with the self-cleaning mechanism of the filter media); and Road traffic noise from Petrolia Line, Brigden Road, Plank Road and Rokeby Line. Lastly, it is also assumed that all noise controls (silencers and acoustical enclosures) have been installed as were detailed in the existing NAP and documented in the AARs. Final (near closure) topography used as worst-case. The assessment assumed the currently approved Lambton Landfill will be closed; however, all other onsite waste management activities will continue. Upon closure of the landfill, a landfill cap will be constructed to its final elevation and contours, covered with topsoil, and a vegetative cover will be established. Access roads, other earthen works (such as berms, drainage ditches and swales, surface water reservoirs, etc.), surface water runoff collection, treatment, and discharge, and noise, dust and lighting abatement measures will be maintained as they were during the operational life of the landfill. Off-site noise impact generated during construction activities would benefit from the existing perimeter berms, which would block direct line-of-sight and reduce the temporary construction noise impacts at the off-site receiver locations along Petrolia Line. The cumulative daytime environmental noise impact predicted was 51 dba at the worst-case and most exposed POR1. The landfill noise impact alone was calculated to be 50 dba at POR1, which is well below the applicable MOE landfill noise limit of 55 dba. Change in noise levels at the most exposed receptor (POR1) is an increase of 1 dba considering the landfill only, which is considered acoustically insignificant. Note that the cumulative increase at POR1 is 6 dba. Of the potentially affected 14 residential dwellings within the study area, the off-site environmental noise impact was limited to the eight existing residential dwellings to the north. These dwellings are presently exposed to the existing environmental noise from the Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill and Incineration Facility, which ranges from 27 dba to 45 dba. The cumulative impact as a result of Alternative 1 will range from 32 dba to 51 dba. Noise levels at all receptors are below the MOE noise limits for landfills. Preliminary design concept provides sufficient noise mitigation to ensure all receptors will remain below the MOE noise limits and additional mitigation measures not required. All receptors will remain below the MOE noise limits for landfill operations. The most affected receptor, POR1, will experience a net increase of 1 dba which is considered acoustically insignificant, as such, no net effects from noise are anticipated. Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses / farms and institutions). Existing facility process sources of noise emissions will remain unchanged. Key design considerations used for evaluating noise impacts relate to the location of the proposed landfill, the on-site truck routes and the associated construction activities. It is assumed that the study area is influenced by the following noise sources: Steady state noise from the existing Clean Harbors Lambton facility (i.e., incinerator fans, air blowers, baghouse and various fans and landfill operations); Impulse noise from the incinerator baghouse controls (i.e., short-term, repeating noises associated with the self-cleaning mechanism of the filter media); and Road traffic noise from Petrolia Line, Brigden Road, Plank Road and Rokeby Line. Lastly, it is also assumed that all noise controls (silencers and acoustical enclosures) have been installed as were detailed in the existing NAP and documented in the AARs. Final (near closure) topography used as worst-case. The assessment assumed the currently approved Lambton landfill will be closed; however, all other onsite waste management activities will continue. Upon closure of the landfill, a landfill cap will be constructed to its final elevation and contours, covered with topsoil, and a vegetative cover will be established. Access roads, other earthen works (such as berms, drainage ditches and swales, surface water reservoirs, etc.), surface water runoff collection, treatment and discharge, and noise, dust and lighting abatement measures will be maintained as they were during the operational life of the landfill. The noise model assessed all receptors within 1 km of the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 study areas. Of the potentially affected 14 residential dwellings within the study area, the off-site environmental noise impact is limited to the eight existing residential dwellings to the north. All noise levels at all receptors are below the MOE noise limits for landfills. Preliminary design concept provides sufficient noise mitigation to ensure all receptors will remain below the MOE noise limits and additional mitigation measures not required. All receptors will remain below the MOE noise limits for landfill operations. The off-site environmental noise impact is limited to the eight existing residential dwellings to the north. 6-34

38 Table 6-15 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Noise Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Key Design Considerations & Future Baseline Considerations & Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects Atmospheric Environment Noise Predicted site-related noise levels (dba). Existing facility process sources of noise emissions will remain unchanged. Key design considerations used for evaluating noise impacts relate to the location of the proposed landfill, the on-site truck routes and the associated construction activities. It is assumed that the study area is influenced by the following noise sources: Steady state noise from the existing Clean Harbors Lambton facility (i.e., incinerator fans, air blowers, baghouse and various fans, and landfill operations); Impulse noise from the incinerator baghouse controls (i.e., short-term, repeating noises associated with the self-cleaning mechanism of the filter media); and Road traffic noise from Petrolia Line, Brigden Road, Plank Road and Rokeby Line. Lastly, it is also assumed that all noise controls (silencers and acoustical enclosures) have been installed as were detailed in the existing NAP and documented in the AARs. Final (near closure) topography used as worst-case. The assessment assumed the currently approved Lambton landfill will be closed; however, all other onsite waste management activities will continue. Upon closure of the landfill, a landfill cap will be constructed to its final elevation and contours, covered with topsoil, and a vegetative cover will be established. Access roads, other earthen works (such as berms, drainage ditches and swales, surface water reservoirs, etc.), surface water runoff collection, treatment and discharge, and noise, dust and lighting abatement measures will be maintained as they were during the operational life of the landfill. Off-site noise impact generated during construction activities would have direct line-ofsight noise exposure to residences located on Rokeby Line. The cumulative daytime environmental noise impact predicted including existing operations and future landfill operations, was 50 dba at the worst-case and most exposed POR1. The landfill noise impact alone was calculated to be 48 dba at POR1, which is well below the applicable MOE landfill noise limit of 55 dba. Of the potentially affected 14 residential dwellings within the study area, the off-site environmental noise impact from Alternative 2 was limited to the five existing residential dwellings to the south. These five residents (POR6 to 9 and POR11) would experience a significant and elevated environmental noise exposure of between 42 dba and 48 dba under the Alternative 2 development. The off-site noise impact would increase more than 10 dba. A greater than 10 dba change in sound is perceived as twice as loud. Preliminary design concept provides sufficient noise mitigation to ensure all receptors will remain below the MOE noise limits and additional mitigation measures not required. All receptors will remain below the MOE noise limits for landfill operations. The five residents to the south of the study area would experience a noise increase of more than 10 dba. A greater than 10 dba change in sound is perceived as twice as loud. Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses / farms and institutions). Existing facility process sources of noise emissions will remain unchanged. Key design considerations used for evaluating noise impacts relate to the location of the proposed landfill, the on-site truck routes and the associated construction activities. It is assumed that the study area is influenced by the following noise sources: Steady state noise from the existing Clean Harbors Lambton facility (i.e., incinerator fans, air blowers, baghouse and various fans, and landfill operations); Impulse noise from the incinerator baghouse controls (i.e., short-term, repeating noises associated with the self-cleaning mechanism of the filter media); and Road traffic noise from Petrolia Line, Brigden Road, Plank Road and Rokeby Line. Lastly, it is also assumed that all noise controls (silencers and acoustical enclosures) have been installed as were detailed in the existing NAP and documented in the AARs. Final (near closure) topography used as worst-case. The assessment assumed the currently approved Lambton landfill will be closed; however, all other onsite waste management activities will continue. Upon closure of the landfill, a landfill cap will be constructed to its final elevation and contours, covered with topsoil, and a vegetative cover will be established. Access roads, other earthen works (such as berms, drainage ditches and swales, surface water reservoirs, etc.), surface water runoff collection, treatment and discharge, and noise, dust and lighting abatement measures will be maintained as they were during the operational life of the landfill. The noise model assessed all receptors within 1 km of the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 study areas. Of the potentially affected 14 residential dwellings within the study area, the off-site environmental noise impact is limited to the five existing residential dwellings to the south. Although, all noise levels at all receptors are below the MOE noise limits for landfills, the off-site noise impact would increase more than 10 dba, which is higher than the net noise increase presented in the previous section for Alternative 1. A greater than 10 dba change in sound is perceived as twice as loud. Preliminary design concept provides sufficient noise mitigation to ensure all receptors will remain below the MOE noise limits and additional mitigation measures not required. All receptors will remain below the MOE noise limits for landfill operations. The off-site environmental noise impact is limited to the five existing residential dwellings to the south, although these residents would experience a noise increase of more than 10 dba. A greater than 10 dba change in sound is perceived as twice as loud. 6-35

39 Extended Site Life The findings in the AARs used to determine noise net effects represent the potential maximum worst-case scenario for each alternative. Therefore, assuming the operational methods do not change, the net effects are also valid for an extended site life Geology and Hydrogeology The geology and hydrogeology net effects analysis utilized the findings of the Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report (Appendix D7, Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report), conditions associated with the currently approved landfill at closure (as outlined in the Landfill Design and Operations Report (Clean Harbors, 2010)), and the Conceptual Design Report (Appendix E) to evaluate the two landfill expansion alternatives, in accordance with the methodology described in the approved ToR. The net effects analysis and comparative evaluation considered two geology / hydrogeology criteria, Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Quantity. It is expected that the excavation of the native clay material to construct landfill cells and the subsequent placement of waste and a cover over the waste, will alter the pattern of groundwater movement locally. The evaluation of the Groundwater Quantity criterion involves an initial assessment of the potential effect of the landfill design on vertical and horizontal hydraulic gradients that develop under the proposed designs. The effect associated with this criterion is defined as precipitation that comes in contact with the waste to produce leachate, which subsequently moves as a contaminant plume outward from the landfill. This movement will occur as lateral seepage discharge to shallow receptors, including a leachate collection system to be installed along the perimeter of the pre-1986 landfill at closure or to the drainage ditches internal to the property. A component of outward seepage will move through the sidewalls and base of the landfill cells to the deep receptor (i.e., Interface Aquifer) below the facility property. The effect is quantified in terms of the volume of solute (leachate) moving outward from the landfill and is expressed in m 3 /year. The Groundwater Quality criterion was selected on the basis that chemical constituents contained in the waste placed at a waste disposal facility will mobilize and move by the processes of advection and diffusion to groundwater receptors, thereby altering groundwater quality in the vicinity of the facility. The effect on groundwater quality at the receptor(s) can be quantified in terms of the potential chemical mass (kg/year) discharge or release. The geology and hydrogeology evaluation reviewed the predicted effect of landfill development on groundwater quantity on and off-site, and the predicted effect of contaminant movement on groundwater quality on and offsite. The following section details the net effects analysis as it relates to the geology and hydrogeology discipline (Appendix F5, Geology & Hydrogeology Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Report). Table 6-28 and Table 6-29 provide a summary of the findings Groundwater Quantity The analysis involves the preparation of a groundwater water balance based on the expected infiltration through the landfill cover / cap and an estimate of the volume of seepage / leakage outward from the existing landfill and for each of the proposed alternatives. This estimate considers the Darcy Flux, which depending on the seepage flow path, is multiplied by either the landfill perimeter and waste thickness or the surface area of the landfill. 6-36

40 The seepage calculations consider three distinctive pathways for the advective transport of leachate. These include: the shallow lateral movement of leachate through the clay cap and the hydraulically-active, weathered overburden with discharge occurring either at a leachate collection system (LCS) (discharged referenced as Q LCS ) or at the perimeter ditches (referenced as Q S ); and deeper movement (referenced as Q D ) outward from the excavation slope downward from the base of the waste cells (referenced as Q B ) with discharge at the underlying Interface Aquifer. The seepage rates are influenced by the hydraulic conductivity of the material, the leachate levels in the waste cells and water level at the discharge receptor (i.e., perimeter ditch and Interface Aquifer), the separation distance between the waste and the discharge receptor, and the size of the area across which movement occurs. The calculations were completed by spreadsheet and illustrated in a series of conceptual cross sections developed for the existing landfill and the alternatives. The analysis is provided in Appendix F5, Geology & Hydrogeology Net Effects Analysis & Comparative Evaluation Report. Under future steady-state (baseline) conditions, shallow seepage discharge from the existing landfill will be captured by a perimeter LCS installed along the perimeter of the pre-1986 landfill and at the network of drainage ditches internal to the facility property. The water collected at the LCS will be managed as leachate and the shallow impacted groundwater that discharges to the ditches will be retained (as is current practice) and treated before being released. The net effects analysis for each of the waste cells of the existing landfill will differ as a function of their cell design and conditions local to the cell. Purge wells will be required in the future to mitigate groundwater quality impact of the Interface Aquifer. Through the consultation process during the EA, review comments received observed that the net effects analysis should include the use of purge wells. The intended future use of purge wells would have the effect of altering the hydraulic gradient adjacent to and below the existing landfill. A similar effect would occur below the two alternatives under consideration. The resulting net effect would be a reduction in the seepage and chloride mass discharge to surface water, and would increase seepage and chloride mass discharge to the Interface Aquifer. To address this comment, a groundwater model was developed and used to assess the effect of purge well pumping on hydraulic gradients below the existing landfill and the two alternatives. As the need to activate purge wells will be decided many years into the future based on groundwater monitoring, the groundwater net effects analysis was conducted in two parts, where the net effects were assessed, 1) without the influence of purge wells and 2) with the influence of the purge wells. The extraction of impacted groundwater from the Interface Aquifer using purge wells will induce a drawdown cone that extends outward from the locations of the wells. This will alter the hydraulic gradients below the facility property and will result in an increase in the rate / volume of seepage that will discharge to the Interface Aquifer. The water extracted from the wells installed in the Interface Aquifer managed as impacted groundwater, will include seepage from the landfill and unaffected groundwater, which is drawn towards the pumped wells from beyond the Clean Harbors property. Alternative 1 The water balance for Alternative 1 considers the construction of a landfill with engineered features (cover system and leachate collection) within the footprint of the existing landfill and over the pre-1986 landfill, Cells 16 and Cell 17, and Cell 18 (Sub-cells 4 12, 14 and 15). The design in the Conceptual Design Report also involves the installation of a LCS to the perimeter of Cell 18, Sub-cells 1 and 2. Purge wells would be employed 6-37

41 in the future to extract impacted groundwater from the Interface Aquifer. Pumping of the purge wells will induce a drawdown cone that extends outward from the locations of the wells and will alter the hydraulic gradients below the facility property. The assessment of the net effects of Alternative 1 will, therefore, involve both the vertical expansion and the seepage / chloride mass discharge contribution from Cell 18, Sub-cells 1 and 2. Groundwater is currently being extracted from the hydraulic control layer (HCL), which was constructed in Cell 18 Sub-cell 3 to mitigate the sub-cell. The extraction of this water is to continue for as long as necessary into the future (in perpetuity). The volume and quality of the water extracted from Cell 18 Sub-cell 3 must be accommodated in the Alternative 1 assessment. The combined net effects for Alternative 1 and portions of the existing landfill that will not be developed (under no active pumping of purge wells) are summarized in Table Table 6-16 Leachate Movement from Alternative 1 and Existing Landfill without Active Pumping Leachate Flow Paths Discharge to Downward Discharge to Landfill Area Lateral Discharge Leachate Interface Aquifer to Drainage Collection System From Excavation From Excavation Ditches (QS) (QLCS) Sidewalls (QD) Base (QB) Alternative 1 1,600.7 m 3 /year 9.3 m 3 /year 78.7 m 3 /year Existing Landfill 2,022.6 m 3 /year 14.1 m 3 /year 61.8 m 3 /year Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 Pumping from HCL m 3 /year Not applicable Totals 3,723.3 m 3 /year Not expected m 3 /year The increased hydraulic gradient associated with purge well pumping will result in an increase in the total volume of water that will need to be managed as leachate. The combined net effects for Alternative 1 and portions of the existing landfill that will not be developed, under purge well pumping, are summarized in Table Table 6-17 Leachate Movement from Alternative 1 and Existing Landfill with Active Pumping Leachate Flow Paths Discharge to Downward Discharge to Landfill Area Lateral Discharge Leachate Interface Aquifer to Drainage Collection System From Excavation From Excavation Ditches (QS) (QLCS) Sidewalls (QD) Base (QB) Alternative 1 1,133.8 m 3 /year 43.2 m 3 /year m 3 /year Existing Landfill 2,022.6 m 3 /year 36.6 m 3 /year m 3 /year Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 Pumping from HCL m 3 /year Not applicable Totals 3,256.4 m 3 /year Not expected m 3 /year Modelling identified that containment of groundwater in the Interface Aquifer for the existing landfill could be achieved by the use of purge wells pumping at a rate of approximately 6 L/min (3,152.6 m 3 /year). Alternative 1 occupies a slightly larger footprint (59 ha) than the existing landfill, which based on an extraction rate of 59.1 m 3 /year per hectare, results in total extraction volume of 3,486.9 m 3 /year. The purge volume exceeds the downward discharge to the Interface Aquifer by 2,737.6 m 3 /year (3,486.9 m 3 /year minus m 3 /year). This difference is unaffected groundwater drawn from beyond the perimeter of the landfill. 6-38

42 The leachate management system for Alternative 1 must, therefore, be capable of handling the volume of water that is: discharged to the LCS (3,256.4 m 3 /year), the water that is extracted from the Cell 18 Sub-cell 3 HCL (100 m 3 /year), and the water that is purged from the Interface Aquifer (3,152.6 m 3 /year). The total volume to be managed as leachate is 6,509.0 m 3 /year. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 involves the construction of a new landfill on Clean Harbors owned property south of the existing landfill site. The discharge for this alternative was determined for each pathway, namely shallow movement through the cap / key and Active Aquitard, and deeper lateral and downward movement from the landfill through the unweathered / intact clay to the Interface Aquifer. The approach is consistent with what was applied for Alternative 1. The future use of purge wells to extract impacted groundwater from the Interface Aquifer will alter the hydraulic gradients below the landfill and in-turn will increase the rate of discharge to the Interface Aquifer. For purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the groundwater extraction from the Interface Aquifer to control groundwater movement will be similar to the rate per hectare estimated for the existing landfill (59.1 m 3 /year per hectare). The footprint area of this landfill is 387,221 m 2 (38.7 ha). The estimated pumping rate for extraction of groundwater below the southern landfill is 2,287.2 m 3 /year (38.7 ha multiplied by 59.1 m 3 /year per hectare). Alternative 2 is a new landfill site and when combined with the existing landfill, the total footprint of the area that has received waste will be significantly larger. Specifically, the net effects established for this alternative would incorporate the full effect of the existing landfill (baseline condition) and the effect of the new landfill area to the south. The combined effects under projected future conditions (with and without active pumping of the Interface Aquifer) are summarized in Table Table Leachate Movement from Alternative 2 and Existing Landfill Landfill Area Without Pumping from Interface Aquifer Discharge to Leachate Collection System (QLCS) Leachate Flow Paths Lateral Discharge to Shallow Groundwater and Surface Water (QS) Downward Discharge to Interface Aquifer From Excavation Sidewalls (QD) From Excavation Base (QB) Alternative 2 No LCS 30,945.4 m 3 /year 35.5 m 3 /year 1,007.9 m 3 /year Existing Landfill m 3 /year 5,656.9 m 3 /year 54.2 m 3 /year m 3 /year Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 Pumping from HCL 100 m 3 /year Not applicable With Pumping from Interface Aquifer Totals m 3 /year 36,602.3 m 3 /year 1,508.7 m 3 /year Alternative 2 No LCS 30,945.4 m 3 /year 42.6 m 3 /year 1,209.5 m 3 /year Existing Landfill m 3 /year 5,656.9 m 3 /year m 3 /year m 3 /year Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 Pumping from HCL m 3 /year Not applicable Totals m 3 /year 36,602.3 m 3 /year 2,220.5 m 3 /year 6-39

43 Purge wells would be used to control groundwater movement below the new landfill area. The estimated pumping rate for the new landfill area is 2,287.2 m 3 /year. The total volume extracted for Alternative 2 is estimated as 5,543.6 m 3 /year (volume from below the existing landfill of 3,256.4 m 3 /year plus volume for new landfill area of 2,287.2 m 3 /year). The leachate management system for Alternative 2 must, therefore, be capable of handling the volume of water that is: directly discharged to the LCS that will be constructed around the pre-1986 landfill at the existing landfill (610.0 m 3 /year), the water that is extracted from the Cell 18 Sub-cell 3 HCL (100 m 3 /year), and the water that is purged from the Interface Aquifer at both the new landfill development and the existing landfill (5,543.6 m 3 /year). The total volume to be managed as leachate is 6,253.6 m 3 /year Groundwater Quality The net effects analysis for groundwater quality involves a comparison of the chloride mass discharge to surface water via shallow groundwater, and deep groundwater in the Interface Aquifer from the two alternatives. The chloride contribution was estimated for the individual pathways. The pathways and transport processes considered are identified below: Shallow (< 5 m depth) movement of solute through the clay cap and clay overburden with eventual discharge to the perimeter LCS or surface water The first pathway is the outward movement through the clay cap placed over the waste. It is assumed that the cap will fully weather with time and a hydraulic gradient will develop. Flow will be dominated by advective transport. Discharge will occur either to a perimeter LCS (QLCS) or to a surface water ditch (QS) internal to the property. Downward movement of solute from the base of the landfill excavation with discharge to the Interface Aquifer The pathway is outward and downward movement through unweathered / intact overburden from the sidewalls of the landfill excavation (QD) and the base of the landfill excavation (QB) to the underlying Interface Aquifer. Solute transport would be dominated by advection. The analysis was completed following two approaches, namely, 1) manual calculation of the long-term mass discharge rates employing the equations presented in Section 2.1 of Appendix F5, Geology & Hydrogeology Net Effects Analysis & Comparative Evaluation Report and 2) a spreadsheet implementation of the exact analytical solution for the transient evolution of the mass discharge along each pathway. Details of the analytical solution are presented in Appendix F5, Geology & Hydrogeology Net Effects Analysis & Comparative Evaluation Report (see Appendix C). As checks on the analyses, it was confirmed that the long-term results of the analytical solution matched the manual calculations, and that the concentrations obtained with the analytical solutions matched those obtained with POLLUTE v7 a one dimensional chemical transport model developed by Rowe and Booker (2004). As the selection of either alternative will alter the current projected influence of the facility on groundwater quality and quantity, the analysis requires an initial assessment of the potential effects of the existing landfill, followed by a separate evaluation of each of the alternatives. Alternative 1 involves construction of new waste cells over portions of the existing landfill and will result in a small increase in the overall footprint of the site that will have received waste. Although it is not intended that 6-40

44 waste be placed over existing Cell 18 Sub-cells 1, 2 and 3, the design for Alternative 1 includes the LCS extending around these sub-cells. The projected effects from Cell 18 Sub-cells 1, 2 and 3 are, therefore, added to the projected effect from Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is a new landfill site and will result in a significantly larger increase in the footprint of the area that has received waste. This alternative would incorporate the full effect of the existing landfill (baseline condition) in addition to the new landfill area to the south. It is expected that purge wells will be required in the future to control groundwater movement in the Interface Aquifer. As described in Section , the extraction rates for the purge wells will exceed the volume of leachate that is expected to move downward to the Interface Aquifer in both cases (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2). The excess water would be drawn from beyond the perimeter of the landfill areas and would have a different chloride signature. The chloride concentrations in the groundwater to the perimeter of the existing landfill in November 2013 varied between 270 and 426 mg/l. The groundwater chemistry is evolving as a result of the increasing stagnation in the Interface Aquifer (due to reduced hydraulic gradients). In the future, the average chloride concentrations may exceed the upper bound of the range (426 mg/l). The chloride mass load contribution from this excess pumped water, which is determined as the volume of excess water extracted multiplied by the average chloride concentration, would need to be added to the total net effects. The calculation of chloride mass discharge to surface water and the Interface Aquifer by advection, without pumping from the Interface Aquifer, is based on the seepage discharge rates Q (expressed in m 3 /year) estimated in the water balance for the existing landfill. The analysis involves multiplying the seepage discharge rates (Q) by the chloride concentration in the waste (in mg/l) and converting the results to kilograms of chloride discharge per year. Pumping from the Interface Aquifer will alter the hydraulic gradients at the landfill and result in a small reduction in the volume moving outward to the perimeter LCS at the pre-1986 landfill and a larger volume of leachate moving downward below the various landfill cells. Pumping of the Interface Aquifer will also draw in groundwater from beyond the perimeter of the landfill. This groundwater will have a chloride mass load, which should be added to the estimated chloride discharge from the landfill to the Interface Aquifer. An additional chloride mass load of approximately kg/year would need to be added to the above chloride discharge estimate to accommodate the contribution from the excess groundwater produced during pumping of the Interface Aquifer. Alternative 1 Vertical Expansion over Previously Landfilled Areas The same approach was followed for estimating the chloride mass discharge to surface water and the Interface Aquifer by advection and diffusion from Alternative 1 as was applied for the analysis of the effects of the existing landfill. Specifically, the seepage discharge rates Q (expressed in m 3 /year) were multiplied by a chloride concentration in the waste, which for the two alternatives was assumed to be 38,100 mg/l, based on the average value for recently placed waste. The chloride mass contained in the water extracted using purge wells installed below Alternative 1 was also calculated. 6-41

45 The estimated chloride mass from the excess groundwater extracted from the Interface Aquifer below the vertical expansion was estimated to be 1,149.5 kg/year and is added to the chloride discharge mass from the other sources. Previously Landfilled Area (Future Baseline Condition) Alternative 1 will encompass only a portion of the existing landfill. Although it is not intended that waste be placed over existing Cell 18 Sub-cells 1, 2 and 3, the design for the landfill shows the LCS extending around these sub-cells. The projected chloride loading from leachate movement from Cell 18 Sub-cells 1 and 2, and the extraction of water from the Cell 18 Sub-cell 3 HCL must, therefore, be added to the projected loading from Alternative 1. The chloride discharge to the perimeter LCS to be installed north and west of Cell 18 Sub-cells 1 and 2 and the discharge to the Interface Aquifer was then calculated. The chloride mass contained in the water extracted using purge wells installed below Cell 18 Sub-cells 1 and 2 was also calculated. The estimated chloride mass from the excess groundwater extracted from the Interface Aquifer below the vertical expansion, when pumping the Interface Aquifer, was estimated to be 17 kg/year and is added to the chloride discharge mass from the other sources. Combined Effect from the Vertical Expansion and Future Baseline Condition The combined chloride mass discharges from the vertical expansion (Alternative 1) and the existing landfill (Cell 18 Sub-cells 1 and 2, and the extraction of water from the Cell 18 Sub-cell 3 HCL) under a condition where purge wells are actively pumped is included in Table 19. Table 6-19 Chloride Discharge from Alternative 1 and Existing Landfill without Active Pumping Chloride Discharge (kg/year) Discharge to Downward Discharge to Landfill Area Lateral Discharge Leachate Interface Aquifer to Drainage Collection System From Excavation From Excavation Ditches (QS) (QLCS) Sidewalls (QD) Base (QB) Alternative 1 60, ,998 Existing Landfill 62, ,915 Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 Pumping from HCL 1,900 Not applicable Totals 125,590 Not expected 5,706 The combined chloride mass discharge from Alternative 1 and those portions of the existing landfill with a perimeter LCS under active pumping of purge wells is presented in Table 20. Table 6-20 Chloride Discharge from Alternative 1 and Existing Landfill with Active Pumping Chloride Discharge (kg/year) Discharge to Downward Discharge to Landfill Area Lateral Discharge Leachate Interface Aquifer to Drainage Collection System From Excavation From Excavation Ditches (QS) (QLCS) Sidewalls (QD) Base (QB) Alternative 1 43,200 1,644 18,832 Existing Landfill 62,702 1,133 4,978 Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 Pumping from HCL 1,900 Not applicable Totals 107,802 Not expected 26,

46 The combined chloride mass from the excess groundwater extracted from the Interface Aquifer is estimated as 1,166.5 kg/year (1,149.5 kg/year over vertical expansion and 17 kg/year from existing landfill, Cell 18, Sub-cell 1 and 2). Alternative 2 The chloride mass discharge to drainage ditches and to the Interface Aquifer for Alternative 2 was estimated by applying the same methodology employed for the existing landfill (future baseline condition) and Alternative 1. The chloride mass discharge for Alternative 2 with active pumping of water from purge wells installed in the Interface Aquifer was also calculated. The estimated chloride mass from the excess groundwater extracted from the Interface Aquifer below the vertical expansion is estimated to be 441 kg/year and is added to the chloride discharge mass from the other sources. Previously Landfilled Area (Future Baseline Condition) Alternative 2 is imposed on the baseline condition represented by the existing landfill. Therefore, it is necessary that the net effects analysis include a projection of the effects from the future baseline condition. This analysis is based on the projected chloride loading from leachate movement from the existing landfill. The chloride mass discharge for the existing landfill with pumping from the Interface Aquifer was also calculated. Combined Effect from Alternative 2 and Future Baseline Condition The combined chloride mass discharges for Alternative 2 and the existing landfill (future baseline condition) are summarized in Table 21. Table 6-21 Chloride Discharge from Alternative 2 and Existing Landfill without Active Pumping Landfill Area Discharge to Leachate Collection System (QLCS) Chloride Discharge (kg/year) Lateral Discharge to Drainage Ditches (QS) Downward Discharge to Interface Aquifer From Excavation Sidewalls (QD) From Excavation Base (QB) Alternative 2 1,179,019 1,353 38,402 Existing Landfill 8, ,135 1,861 14,429 Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 Pumping from HCL 1,900 Not applicable Totals 10,077 1,385,154 56,055 The combined chloride mass discharge from Alternative 2 and the existing landfill under active pumping of purge wells is summarized in Table 22. The combined chloride mass from the excess groundwater extracted from the Interface Aquifer is estimated as 1,412.3 kg/year (441 kg/year for Alternative 2 and kg/year from existing landfill). This value is included in the net effects contribution for Alternative

47 Table 6-22 Chloride Discharge from Alternative 2 and Existing Landfill with Active Pumping Chloride Discharge (kg/year) Discharge to Downward Discharge to Landfill Area Lateral Discharge Leachate Interface Aquifer to Drainage Collection System From Excavation From Excavation Ditches (QS) (QLCS) Sidewalls (QD) Base (QB) Alternative 2 1,179,019 2,577 46,082 Existing Landfill 7, ,135 3,693 27,625 Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 Pumping from HCL 1,900 Not applicable Totals 8,909 1,385,154 79, Summary of Net Effects for the Two Alternatives Groundwater Quantity Criterion Leachate Discharge Analysis without Pumping from Interface Aquifer The leachate discharges for the two Alternative Methods are compared with the discharge rates derived for the existing landfill (future baseline condition) in Table 23. Table 6-23 Comparison of Leachate Discharge from Alternative Method 1 and Alternative Method 2 with Existing Landfill without Active Pumping from Interface Aquifer Receptor Leachate Collection System (QLCS) Pumping from Extraction Wells in Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 (QLCS) Discharge to Surface Water (QS) Discharge to Interface Aquifer (QD and QB) Existing Landfill (future baseline) , Discharge Contribution Expressed in m 3 /year Alternative 1 from Table ,623.3 (net increase of 2,912.2 m 3 /year) (no change) no discharge expected (net decrease of 5,656.9 m 3 /year) (net decrease of m 3 /year) Alternative 2 from Table (no change) (no change) 36,602.3 (net increase of 30,945 m 3 /year) 1,508.7 (net increase of 1,043.4 m 3 /year) Alternative 1 will result in a net decrease in the volume of leachate that will move towards and discharge in surface water ditches on site in comparison with the future baseline condition. The decrease is attributed to the installation of an engineered cover over the vertical expansion cells to be constructed and the installation of a perimeter LCS. The engineered cover will reduce the volume of infiltration that encounters waste and the shallow lateral flow of leachate will be intercepted by the LCS. The reduction in leachate mounding within the landfill associated with the installation of an engineered cover, will reduce the outward hydraulic gradient from the existing landfill and, therefore, the volume of leachate that would move out through the excavation sidewalls and base of the landfill. Alternative 2 is a new landfill installed south of the existing landfill and, therefore, the overall footprint of the area that will have received waste will increase. This will in turn result in an increase in the volume of leachate 6-44

48 produced compared to the future baseline condition and, therefore, an increase in the volume of leachate that will move towards and discharge in surface water ditches and to the Interface Aquifer. Leachate Discharge Analysis with Pumping from Interface Aquifer The leachate discharges for the two alternatives are compared with the discharge rates derived for the existing landfill (future baseline condition) in Table 24. This analysis assumes active pumping from purge wells installed in the Interface Aquifer. Table Comparison of Leachate Discharge from Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 with Existing Landfill with Active Pumping from Interface Aquifer Receptor Leachate Collection System (QLCS) Pumping from Extraction Wells in Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 (QLCS) Discharge to Surface Water (QS) Discharge to Interface Aquifer (QD and QB) Existing Landfill (future baseline) , Discharge Contribution Expressed in m 3 /year Alternative 1 from Table ,156.4 (net increase of 2,546.4 m 3 /year) (no change) No discharge expected (net decrease of 5,656.9 m 3 /year) (net decrease of m 3 /year) Alternative 2 from Table (no change) (no change) 36,602.3 (net increase of 30,945.4 m 3 /year) 2,228.3 (net increase of 1,251.7 m 3 /year) Purge Well Extraction from Interface Aquifer Purge Well Extraction from Interface Aquifer 3, ,486.9 (net increase of m 3 /year) 5,439.8 (net increase of 2,287.2 m 3 /year) Modeling completed for the net effects assessment identified that containment of groundwater in the Interface Aquifer for the existing landfill could be achieved by the use of purge wells pumping at a rate of approximately 6 L/min (3,152.6 m 3 /year). The existing landfill and interstitial areas occupies an area of 533,554 m 2 (53.3 ha). The extraction rate per hectare is 59.1 m 3 /year. The combined purge well extraction rate for Alternative 1 is calculated to be approximately 3,486.9 m 3 /year. The total extraction rate for Alternative 2 is estimated to be approximately 5,439.8 m 3 /year (calculated as 2,287.2 m 3 /year for Alternative 2 and 3,152.6 m 3 /year for existing landfill). In both cases (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2), the total extraction rates exceed the volume of leachate that is expected to move downward to the Interface Aquifer. Therefore, the water extracted includes groundwater that is drawn from beyond the perimeter of the landfill area. In comparison with the future baseline condition, Alternative 1 will result in less leachate and groundwater that will need to be collected (from perimeter LCS and extracted from the Interface Aquifer and HCL) and managed. In contrast, Alternative 2 will result in an increase in the volume of leachate and groundwater to be extracted / managed in comparison with the future baseline condition. 6-45

49 Groundwater Quality Criterion Chloride Discharge Analysis without Active Pumping from Interface Aquifer The estimated chloride loading for the two Alternative Methods in comparison with that for the existing landfill (future baseline condition) in presented in Table 25. Table 6-25 Comparison of Chloride Discharge from Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 with Existing Landfill without Active Pumping from Interface Aquifer Receptor Leachate Collection System (QLCS) Pumping from Extraction Wells in Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 (QLCS) Discharge to Surface Water (QS) Discharge to Interface Aquifer (QD and QB) Existing Landfill (future baseline) 8,177 1, ,135 16,290 Chloride Discharge Contribution Expressed in kg/year Alternative 1 from Table ,690 (net increase of 115,513 kg/year) 1,900 (no change) No discharge expected (net decrease of 206,135 kg/year) 5,706 (net decrease of 10,584 kg/year) Alternative 2 from Table ,177 (no change) 1,900 (no change) 1,385,154 (net increase of 1,179,019 kg/year) 56,055 (net increase of 39,765 kg/year) The Alternative 1 chloride loadings to surface water ditches on site and to the Interface Aquifer are lower than for the existing landfill. This is primarily attributed to the installation of an engineered cover over the vertical expansion cells and the installation of a perimeter LCS. The chloride mass is recovered at the perimeter LCS. In contrast, the Alternative 2 chloride loading to surface water and the Interface Aquifer is substantially larger primarily since the footprint of the area that will have received waste is larger. Chloride Discharge Analysis with Active Pumping from Interface Aquifer The chloride discharges for the two alternatives are compared with the discharge rates for the existing landfill (future baseline condition) in Table 26. This analysis assumes active pumping from purge wells installed in the Interface Aquifer. As noted previously, purge wells pumped at approximately 6 L/min would fully control groundwater movement in the Interface Aquifer below the existing landfill site. The rate of extraction for Alternative 1, which has a similar footprint area, is expected to be similar and for purposes of the screening level exercise the rate of extraction for Alternative 2 is assumed to be similar on a per hectare. The extraction rate for both Alternatives 1 and 2 exceeds the volume of leachate that is expected to move downward to the Interface Aquifer. The excess water would be drawn from beyond the perimeter of the landfill areas and would have a different chloride signature. 6-46

50 Table 6-26 Comparison of Chloride Discharge from Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 with Existing Landfill with Active Pumping from Interface Aquifer Receptor Leachate Collection System (QLCS) Pumping from Extraction Wells in Cell 18, Sub-cell 3 (QLCS) Discharge to Surface Water (QS) Discharge to Interface Aquifer (QD and QB) Existing Landfill (future baseline) 7,009 1, ,135 31,318 Chloride Discharge Contribution Expressed in kg/year Alternative 1 from Table ,902 (net increase of 98,893 kg/year) 1,900 (no change) No discharge expected (net decrease of 206,135 kg/year) 26,587 (net decrease of 4,731 kg/year) Alternative 2 from Table ,009 (no change) 1,900 (no change) 1,385,154 (net increase of 1,179,019 kg/year) 79,977 (net increase of 48,659 kg/year) Since the water extracted from the Interface Aquifer is to be managed as leachate, the additional chloride mass of the groundwater drawn from beyond the perimeter of the landfill under pumping of the purge wells should be factored into the total chloride mass to be managed. The chloride mass for both alternatives is estimated in Table 27. Table 6-27 Chloride Mass Extracted from Purge Wells Installed in Interface Aquifer Existing Landfill, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 Discharge to Interface Aquifer (QD and QB) from Table 24 Purge Well Extraction from Interface Aquifer from Table 24 Excess Groundwater Contribution Existing Landfill (future baseline) Alternative 1 Alternative m 3 /year m 3 /year 2,228.3 m 3 /year 3,152.6 m 3 /year 3,486.9 m 3 /year 5,439.8 m 3 /year 2,184.2 m 3 /year (3, m 3 /year) 2,752.5 m 3 /year (3, m 3 /year) 3,211.5 m 3 /year (5, ,228.3 m 3 /year) Chloride Concentration in Groundwater 426 mg/l Chloride Discharge from Excess Groundwater Contribution 927 kg/year 1,166 kg/year 1,368 kg/year Chloride Mass Discharge to Interface Aquifer (QD and QB) from Table 26 31,318 kg/year 26,587 kg/year 79,977 kg/year Total Chloride Mass 32,245 kg/year 27,753 kg/year 81,345 kg/year The results of the net effects analyses for the geology/hydrogeology discipline for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are summarized in Tables 6-28 and

51 Table 6-28 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Geology and Hydrogeology Environmental Component Geology and Hydrogeology Criteria Indicators Key Design Considerations & Predicted effect of landfill development on groundwater quantity on-site and off-site. Groundwater Quantity Groundwater Quality Predicted effect of contaminant movement on groundwater quality on-site and off-site. The effects analysis for Alternative 1 includes effects from existing Cell 18 Sub-cell 1 & 2, and ongoing extraction of groundwater from Cell 18, Sub-cell 3. The area receiving waste will be increased over the existing landfill area by approximately 4.6 ha as a result of infilling of existing open areas between / adjacent to existing cells. The footprint of the landfill will at closure receive an engineered landfill cover. A LCS will be installed around the full perimeter of the existing landfill. The engineered cover combined with the LCS will reduce the current leachate level in waste. This will results in a reduction in hydraulic gradients outward from the landfill. The effects analysis for Alternative 1 includes effects from existing Cell 18 Sub-cell 1 & 2, and ongoing extraction of groundwater from Cell 18, Sub-cell 3. The area receiving waste will be increased over the existing landfill area by approximately 4.6 ha as a result of infilling of existing open areas between / adjacent to existing cells. The footprint of the landfill will at closure receive an engineered landfill cover. A LCS will be installed around the full perimeter of the existing landfill. The engineered cover combined with the LCS will reduce the current leachate level in waste. This will results in a reduction in hydraulic gradients outward from the landfill. Future Baseline Conditions & Use of perimeter LCS to contain leachate movement through shallow sub-surface. Treatment to occur either on-site or off-site in the future. Continuation of current surface water management system with modification to handle the expected higher surface water flow rates. Use of purge wells at existing landfill to extract impacted groundwater from the Interface Aquifer when deemed necessary. Continued extraction of water from the HCL installed in Cell 18 Sub-cell 3. Use of perimeter LCS to contain leachate movement through shallow sub-surface. Treatment to occur either on-site or off-site in the future. Continued extraction of water from the HCL installed in Cell 18 Sub-cell 3. Use of purge wells at existing landfill to extract impacted groundwater from the Interface Aquifer when deemed necessary. Continuation of current surface water management system. Chloride was considered in the analysis as a surrogate of the chemical release as it is present as a major constituent of the waste, is highly soluble, and is chemically stable (not degradable or readily attenuated) and, therefore, mobile. Current chloride concentration in waste representative of future concentration. Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects The effects of the landfill on groundwater quantity can be considered in the context of the potential volume of leachate that moves outward from the landfill. Shallow lateral movement of leachate from the landfill is captured by the perimeter LCS. The volume extracted is estimated as 3,623.3 m 3 /year (see Table 6-23). The volume of water extracted from the HCL installed in Cell 18 Sub-cell 3 on an ongoing basis is estimated as 100 m 3 /year. Leachate moving outward through the lower portions of the cell excavation and base is expected to discharge to Interface Aquifer. The volume is estimated as m 3 /year (Table 6-24). This water will be extracted using purge wells. Pumping will draw in water from beyond the perimeter of the landfill. The total volume is estimated as 3,486.9 m 3 /year. Chloride mass discharge to potential receptors is an indicator of potential contaminant movement on and offsite. The predicted chloride mass discharge without pumping of the Interface Aquifer is presented in Table 6-25 and summarized below: Perimeter LCS (123,690 kg/year); HCL extraction wells (1,900 kg/year); and Interface Aquifer (5,706 kg/year). The predicted chloride mass discharge with pumping of the Interface Aquifer is presented in Table 6-26 and Table 6-27, and summarized below: Perimeter LCS (105,902 kg/year); HCL extraction wells (1,900 kg/year); and Purge wells in Interface Aquifer (26,587 kg/year). The water that is recovered by the LCS and the HCL extraction wells will be managed as leachate. It is intended that purge wells will be employed in a manner consistent with the approach in the Design and Operation Report to extract impacted groundwater from the Interface Aquifer. The pumping rate to control groundwater movement in the Interface Aquifer is estimated by preliminary modeling as 6 L/min (3,152.6 m 3 /year). The extracted groundwater will need to be managed as leachate. The LCS and engineered cover will need to be operated / maintained inperpetuity. The water that is recovered by the perimeter LCS, the HCL extraction wells and the purge wells installed in the Interface Aquifer will be managed as leachate. The perimeter LCS, extraction wells and purge wells (when once activated) will need to be operated / maintained for the full contaminating life of the landfill. The engineered cover will also need to be maintained in-perpetuity. Per Table 6-24, it is projected that 3,256.4 m 3 /year of impacted water will the recovered by the perimeter LCS and extracted from the Sub-cell 3 HCL. An additional 3,486.9 m 3 /year of impacted groundwater will be purged from the Interface Aquifer (Table 6-27). The total (6,743.3 m 3 /year) will need to be managed as leachate. This represents an increase of 2,880.7 m 3 /year over the volume of impacted water (3,862.6 m 3 /year) that would need to be managed under the future baseline condition (see Table 6-24). The volume of impacted groundwater to be extracted from the Interface Aquifer under this Alternative (3,486.9 m 3 /year) is marginally larger than that projected for the future baseline condition (3,152.6 m 3 /year). The infrastructure (i.e., purge wells and piping) required for Alternative 1 is fundamentally similar to that for the future baseline condition. The perimeter LCS proposed for Alternative 1 will prevent discharge of impacted water to surface water. This represents a reduction in discharge of 5,656.9 m 3 /year (Table 6-24). Per Table 6-26, it is projected that the water recovered by the LCS and extracted from the Sub-cell 3 HCL will contain 107,802 kg/year of chloride. The groundwater to be purged from the Interface Aquifer will contain an additional 27,753 kg/year of chloride (Table 6-27). The impacted water with a total chloride mass of 135,555 kg/year is to be managed as leachate. This represents an increase of 94,401 kg/year over the chloride mass (41,154 kg/year) that would need to be managed under the future baseline condition. There is no expected chloride mass discharge to surface water for Alternative 1. This represents a 206,135 kg/year reduction in the chloride discharge predicted for the future baseline condition. 6-48

52 Table 6-29 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Geology and Hydrogeology Environmental Component Geology and Hydrogeology Criteria Groundwater Quantity Groundwater Quality Indicators Predicted effect of landfill development on groundwater quantity on-site and off-site. Predicted effect of contaminant movement on groundwater quality on-site and off-site. Key Design Considerations & Future Baseline Conditions & The effects analysis for Alternative 2 The pre-1986 landfill will at closure, includes effects from the full existing receive an engineered landfill cover. A landfill. LCS will be installed around the full The area receiving waste will be perimeter of the existing landfill. increased over the existing landfill Continued extraction of water from the area by approximately 38.7 ha. HCL installed in Cell 18 Sub-cell 3. The landfill design calls for waste to be Use of purge wells at existing landfill to placed in an excavation extending to extract impacted groundwater from the about 13 m below ground. The waste Interface Aquifer when deemed will be covered by 5.1 m of compacted necessary. clay. The resulting landform will Continuation of current surface water extend about 7 m above the ground management system with modification to surface at its centre. handle the expected higher surface water The landfill will be surrounded by a flow rates. perimeter berm. Surface water drainage will be provided by ditches installed between the landfill and the perimeter berm. Surface water will be retained, and treated prior to release from the facility property. The design does not incorporate a LCS. The effects analysis for Alternative 2 includes effects from the full existing landfill. The area receiving waste will be increased over the existing landfill area by approximately 38.7 ha. The landfill design calls for waste to be placed in an excavation extending to about 13 m below ground. The waste will be covered by 5.1 m of compacted clay. The resulting landform will extend about 7 m above the ground surface at its centre. The landfill will be surrounded by a perimeter berm. Surface water drainage will be provided by ditches installed between the landfill and the perimeter berm. Surface water will be retained, and treated prior to release from the facility property. The design does not incorporate a LCS. The pre-1986 landfill will at closure, receive an engineered landfill cover. A LCS will be installed around the full perimeter the pre-1986 landfill. Continued extraction of water from the HCL installed in Cell 18 Sub-cell 3. Use of purge wells at existing landfill to extract impacted groundwater from the Interface Aquifer when deemed necessary. Continuation of current surface water management system with modification to the water treatment plant as necessary. Chloride was considered in the analysis as a surrogate of the chemical release as it is present as a major constituent of the waste, is highly soluble, and is chemically stable (not degradable or readily attenuated) and, therefore, mobile. Current chloride concentration in waste representative of future concentration. Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects The surface water ditches installed between the landfill and the perimeter berm at the existing landfill and those to be installed at the southern expansion, will intercept the shallow lateral movement of leachate from the landfill. The volume of seepage discharge from the existing landfill and the southern expansion is estimated as 36,602.3 m 3 /year (see Table 6-23). The volume of water extracted from the LCS for the pre-1986 landfill and the HCL installed in Cell 18 Sub-cell 3 on an ongoing basis is estimated as m 3 /year. Leachate moving outward through the lower portions of the cell excavation and base is expected to discharge to Interface Aquifer. The volume is estimated as 1,508.7 m 3 /year. This water will be extracted using purge wells. Pumping will draw in water from beyond the perimeter of the landfill. The total volume is estimated as 5,439.8 m 3 /year. Chloride mass discharge to potential receptors is an indicator of potential contaminant movement on and off-site. The predicted chloride mass discharge without pumping of the Interface Aquifer is presented in Table 6-25 and summarized below: Perimeter LCS at the pre landfill (8,177 kg/year); HCL extraction wells (1,900 kg/year); and Interface Aquifer (56,055 kg/year). The predicted chloride mass discharge with pumping of the Interface Aquifer is presented in Table 6-26 and Table 6-27, and summarized below: Perimeter LCS at the pre-1986 landfill (7,009 kg/year); HCL extraction wells (1,900 kg/year); and Purge wells in Interface Aquifer (79,977 kg/year). The water that is recovered by the perimeter LCS, the HCL extraction wells and the purge wells installed in the Interface Aquifer will be managed as leachate. The perimeter LCS at the pre-1986 landfill, the extraction wells and purge wells (when once activated) will need to be operated / maintained for the full contaminating life of the landfill. The effect of the chloride mass loading to the on-site surface water management system is addressed in the surface water effects analysis. The landfill cap and surface water ditches will also need to be maintained in-perpetuity The water that is recovered by the perimeter LCS at the pre-1986 landfill, the HCL extraction wells and the purge wells installed in the Interface Aquifer will be managed as leachate. The perimeter LCS at the pre-1986 landfill, the extraction wells and purge wells (when once activated) will need to be operated / maintained for the full contaminating life of the landfill. The effect of the chloride mass loading to the on-site surface water management system is addressed in the surface water effects analysis. The landfill cap and surface water ditches will also need to be maintained in-perpetuity Per Table 6-24, it is projected that the volume (710 m 3 /year) of impacted water recovered by the LCS and extracted from the Sub-cell 3 HCL will not change because the design for Alternative 2 does not include a LCS. The volume of impacted groundwater to be purged from the Interface Aquifer is predicted to be 5,439.8 m 3 /year. The recovered leachate / water (total volume 6,149.8 m 3 /year) will be managed as leachate. This represents an increase of 2,287.2 m 3 /year over the volume of impacted water (3,862.6 m 3 /year) that would need to be managed under the future baseline condition. The volume of impacted groundwater to be extracted from the Interface Aquifer for Alternative 2 (5,439.8 m 3 /year) is 2,287.2 m 3 /year greater than that projected for the future baseline condition (3,152.6 m 3 /year). Alternative 2 will require additional infrastructure (i.e., purge wells and piping) to extract and manage the water in comparison with the future baseline condition. The volume of impacted water that will discharge to surface water (36,602.3 m 3 /year) for Alternative 2 is 30,945.4 m 3 /year greater than what is predicted for the future baseline condition Table 6-24). Per Table 6-26, it is projected that 8,909 kg/year of chloride will the recovered by the perimeter LCS at the pre-1986 landfill and extracted from the Sub-cell 3 HCL. An additional 79,977 kg/year of chloride will be purged from the Interface Aquifer (Table 6-27). The chloride mass (90,254 kg/year) will need to be managed as leachate. This represents an increase of 49,100 kg/year over the chloride mass (41,154 kg/year) that would need to be managed under the future baseline condition (see Tables 6-26 and 6-27). The chloride mass to be extracted from the Interface Aquifer under this alternative (81,345 kg/year) is substantially larger than that projected for the future baseline condition (32,245 kg/year). Additional infrastructure (i.e., purge wells and piping) is required for Alternative 2 in comparison with the future baseline condition. The chloride mass in the discharge to surface water will be substantially larger at 1,385,154 kg/year in comparison with the future baseline condition (206,135 kg/year (Table 6-26). 6-49

53 Extended Site Life The geology and hydrogeology analysis is based on a steady state condition, which is not expected to develop for several decades to hundreds of years. Extending the landfill life (provided it does not lead to an alteration of the dimensions of the landfill or other parameters that were considered in the analysis) will not result in changes to the effects analysis Surface Water The surface water analysis utilized the findings of the Surface Water Existing Conditions Report (Appendix D8, Surface Water Existing Conditions Report), conditions associated with the currently approved landfill at closure and the Conceptual Design Report (Appendix E) to evaluate the two landfill expansion alternatives, in accordance with the methodology as outlined in the approved ToR. The surface water environment evaluation reviewed the following criteria as part of the net effects analysis: Assessment of on-site and off-site surface water quality including any predicted impact from upward diffusion of chemicals from the waste. Predicted water flows for existing and proposed site conditions. The following section details the net effects analysis as it relates to the surface water discipline (Appendix F6, Surface Water Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Report). Table 6-30 and Table 6-31 provide a summary of the findings Alternative 1 The proposed stormwater management system for Alternative 1 is presented on Figure 7 of the Conceptual Design Report (Appendix E) and consists of three main components: swales/ditches, storage ponds and a water treatment system. The stormwater management system design parameters under Alternative 1 in the Conceptual Design Report include: Drainage ditches to accommodate runoff of a 1:25 year rain event; Detention capacity on-site to accommodate a 1:100 year storm event; and Minimum surface water treatment capacity of 2 ML/day (million litres per day). Surface water is proposed to be stored in the interior perimeter ditches on-site with each ditch section to be managed with an overflow and controlled outlet to facilitate drainage between storms. The surface water treatment plant (SWTP) will continue to treat surface waters on-site prior to controlled off-site release. The main changes to the current stormwater management system under Alternative 1 include: The perimeter surface water ditch system will be redesigned and constructed to accommodate both storage and transmission of surface water around the site. The south process water pond will be relocated to the western buffer zone to accommodate the installation of the perimeter LCS and the final cover. The existing West Reservoir will be relocated to accommodate the new South Process Water Pond. 6-50

54 The stormwater drainage will be spilt at the northeast corner of the site. Stormwater that is generated in the north and west portion of the site will drain to the West Reservoir through a new ditch along the west side of the Lambton facility. This will reduce pumping requirements on the east side. The East Reservoir will be reduced in size to accommodate waste disposal and provide a stormwater reservoir for the pumping system. Surface Water Quality For the purposes of completing the net effects analysis, chloride was selected as a surrogate for the effects of waste chemicals released to surface water. Under Alternative 1, the LCS will maintain an unsaturated condition in the waste cells within the LCS perimeter. There will be a small volume of deeper groundwater flow under the LCS that for the purposes of screening level calculations, has been assigned to discharge to the interface aquifer. As such, there is no anticipated mass discharge of chloride from the waste to surface waters, based on groundwater modelling conducted as a part of the Geology and Hydrogeology Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Report (Appendix F5), under Alternative 1 (RWDI, 2014; see Section 5 for comparison of results). Surface Water Quantity Alternative 1 provides an improvement in surface water volume conveyed to the north outlet over the future baseline condition. The proposed site channel conveyance system moves a portion of catchment away from the north outlet and redirects to the West Reservoir resulting in a reduction in volume and peak flow rate. Refer to Figures 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, and 6-12 for north (J1) and south (J4) outlet locations. Alternative 1 provides results that are similar to the future baseline condition. Changes in catchment boundaries account for the slight variations Alternative 2 The existing stormwater management systems at the existing site are to be maintained and similar stormwater management systems will be constructed at Alternative 2. The proposed stormwater management system at closure is presented on Figure 5-15 and consists of three main components: swales / ditches, storage ponds and a water treatment system. The stormwater management system design parameters under Alternative 2 include: Drainage ditches to accommodate runoff of 1:25 year rain event; Detention capacity on-site to accommodate a 1:100 year storm event; and Minimum surface water treatment capacity of 2 ML/day. Surface water will be collected in constructed ditches between the landfill footprint and the perimeter berm. This water will be directed to a new surface water management pond to be constructed at the southwest corner of the Alternative 2 site inside the perimeter berm. The water will then be pumped to a new on-site treatment plant (to be constructed adjacent to the surface water management pond) which will treat surface water prior to controlled off-site release. Off-site release of treated surface water will occur via a channel cut through the perimeter berm to the eastern roadside ditch along Telfer Road, downstream of inputs from the existing site discharge. Treated effluent will be directly released from the treatment plant off-site to the Telfer roadside ditch. It is expected that discharge from the site will occur through controlled gated release and will be governed by discharge criteria set forth in a site specific Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). In the event of unfavourable water quality, it is expected, as per current practice, the SWTP will enter recirculation mode until such time that favourable results suitable for off-site discharge are met. 6-51

55 FIGURE 6-9 EXISTING CONDITION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CATCHMENTS MAY 2014 PROJECT

56 FIGURE 6-10 FUTURE BASELINE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CATCHMENTS MAY 2014 PROJECT

57 FIGURE 6-11 ALTERNATIVE 1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CATCHMENTS MAY 2014 PROJECT

58 FIGURE 6-12 ALTERNATIVE 2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CATCHMENTS MAY 2014 PROJECT

59 The key features for the surface water management system under Alternative 2 include: A surface water management pond is proposed for construction at the southern end of Alternative 2. Drainage swales have been designed for the inside toe of the perimeter berm and the perimeter of the waste disposal area. Both drainage systems will be directed to the surface water pond. The exterior portion of the perimeter berm will drain to the roadside ditches or to drainage swales that drain directly to the road side ditches and the woodlot area will drain as per current existing conditions. A new SWTP (proposed at 2.0 ML/day), will be built within the southern portion of Alternative 2 to treat surface water generated by Alternative 2. The surface water management pond and drainage ditches will be constructed as part of the initial construction work. Surface Water Quality Alternative 2 involves an increase in the total waste footprint which must consider the long-term effects of the closed capped existing landfill site. The maximum impact is anticipated from groundwater discharge to the interior perimeter ditches and is anticipated to occur within a few decades following the completion of the final waste cell (i.e., under post closure conditions). The maximum cumulative mass discharge of chloride from the waste to surface waters from the original site (206,135 kg/yr) and Alternative 2 (1,179,019 kg/yr) is estimated to be 1,385,154 kg/yr (RWDI, 2014). Surface Water Quantity Alternative 2 is equal to the future baseline condition for surface water volume conveyed to the north outlet. Alternative 2 will result in a notable increase in volume of runoff generated due to the change in catchment parameters for the south expansion site. The south expansion will result in a reduction of vegetative cover quality and use of more impervious surface cover material resulting in an increase in runoff volume. The implementation of a south surface water reservoir will result in a reduction in peak flow rate at the south outlet. 6-56

60 Table 6-30 Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Surface Water Environmental Component Criteria Surface Water Surface Water Quality Surface Water Quantity Indicators Assessment of on-site and offsite surface water quality including any predicted impact from upward diffusion of chemicals from the waste. Predicted water flows for existing and proposed site conditions. Key Design Considerations & Future Baseline Considerations & Vertical expansion will be completed within Surface water will continue to be treated the approved area of the existing landfill via the on-site SWTP prior to controlled with the top of the waste limited by the off-site release. height of the existing interior perimeter Chemical composition of overland flow berms. A perimeter LCS will be installed. collected by the interior perimeter Process water and leachate impacted ditches is not expected to change waters will be managed in the same way as significantly as it will continue to be under existing site conditions. representative of direct water runoff The SWTP will continue to treat surface from the non-impacted areas of the site. waters on-site prior to controlled off-site Chemical migration of contaminants release. from the waste to the interior perimeter The maximum rate of discharge from the ditches by way of the shallow SWTP will not be greater than downstream groundwater system may take ditch capacity and will be managed so that approximately 10 to 1,000 years. discharge will not result in flooding in the S-Pit remediation will be completed. A downstream receiving ditches off-site. perimeter LCS and engineered cap will It is expected that the LCS perimeter be constructed around the pre-1986 hydraulic control trench will be designed, landfill area. maintained and operated in such a way that it will continue to function indefinitely. Overtime, the underlying HCL is expected to have a limited lifespan and function as it will eventually clog with fine sediments. When this underlying HCL fails, there will be a small volume of deeper groundwater flow under the LCS that for the purposes of screening level calculations, has been assigned to discharge to the Interface Aquifer. As such, there is no anticipated mass discharge of chloride from the waste to surface waters under Alternative 1. East Reservoir active storage volume of 18,000 m 3 as per conceptual drawings (approximately half of existing Reservoir). East Reservoir outlet flow rate (pumped) of 16 L/s as per existing ECA and existing condition. SWTP treated volume of approximately 2 ML/day (increased from current operating rates). West Reservoir active storage volume of 25,000 m 3 as per completed survey and existing condition. West Reservoir outlet flow rate (pumped) of 23.1 L/s as per capacity of SWTP (2 ML over 24 hours). Removal of the two existing condition internal surface water storage depressions located upstream of the East Reservoir. Process water collection area of approximately 8.4 ha. East Reservoir active storage volume of 36,000 m 3 as per completed survey and existing condition. East Reservoir outlet flow rate (pumped) of 16 L/s as per existing ECA and existing condition. SWTP treated volume of approximately 2 ML/day (increased from current operating rates). West Reservoir active storage volume of 25,000 m 3 as per completed survey and existing condition. West Reservoir outlet flow rate (pumped) of 23.1 L/s as per capacity of SWTP (2 ML over 24 hours). Removal of the two existing condition internal surface water storage depressions located upstream of the East Reservoir. Process water collection area of approximately 7.3 ha. Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects There is no anticipated mass discharge of chloride from the waste to surface waters under Alternative 1. This is attributed to the installation of an engineered cover and installation of a perimeter LCS. Potential increase in runoff volume and peak flow rate to the site outlets. The SWTP can be modified or enhanced to address changes in water volumes required for treatment prior to controlled off-site release. Off-site surface water impacts are effectively mitigated as treated surface waters will continue to be held on-site until analytical results confirm the surface water is of a suitable quality for off-site release. Ensure detailed design of on-site surface water quantity control storage and conveyance is appropriately sized to meet the site operational practice. Surface water quality will be required to meet discharge criteria specified in ECA (Waste) prior to controlled release off-site from the Equalization Reservoir. There is no expected chloride mass discharge to surface water under Alternative 1. This represents a 206,135 kg/yr reduction in the chloride mass discharge predicted for future baseline conditions. Chloride concentrations in treated effluent are expected to continue to be within Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) 1 guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Net Effects on the North Outlet: Alternative 1 results in an improvement in surface water quantity volume and peak flow over the future baseline condition. Net Effects on the South Outlet: Alternative 1 results in similar surface water quantity volume and peak flow as the future baseline condition. Note: 1. CCME: Canadian Water Quality Objectives for the protection of aquatic life as published by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 2012). 6-57

61 Table 6-31 Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Surface Water Environmental Component Surface Water Surface Water Quality Criteria Indicators Key Design Considerations & Surface Water Quantity Assessment of on-site and offsite surface water quality including any predicted impact from upward diffusion of chemicals from the waste. Predicted water flows for existing and proposed site conditions. Design involves an increase in the total waste footprint. Waste disposal contours will be maintained at elevations similar to the existing ground surface and below the elevation of the proposed perimeter berms. On closure, Alternative 2 will have a land mass that will extend approximately 7 m above ground surface at the peak. Waste disposal capacity will be consistent with the waste disposal capacity provided by Alternative 1. Design does not include a LCS. Process water and leachate impacted waters will be managed in the same way as under existing site conditions. Surface water will be collected by constructed ditches between the landfill footprint and the perimeter berm and will be directed to a new SWTP for treatment. The SWTP will treat non-impacted surface waters on-site prior to controlled off-site release. Treated effluent will not be directed to a holding pond prior to off-site release, but will be directly released from the treatment plant following treatment off-site to the Telfer Roadside Ditch. Off-site release of treated surface water will be by way of a channel cut through the perimeter berm to the eastern roadside ditch along Telfer Road, downstream of inputs from the existing site discharge by way of the Equalization Reservoir. The maximum rate of discharge from the new SWTP will not be greater than downstream ditch capacity and that discharge rates and schedules between the SWTP at the existing site and the Alternative 2 SWTP will also be managed so that discharge will not result in flooding in the downstream receiving ditches off-site. East Reservoir active storage volume of 36,000 m 3 as per completed survey and existing condition. East Reservoir outlet flow rate (pumped) of 16 L/s as per existing ECA and existing condition. SWTP treated volume of approximately 2 ML/day (increased from current operating rates). West Reservoir active storage volume of 25,000 m 3 as per completed survey and existing condition. West Reservoir outlet flow rate (pumped) of 23.1 L/s as per capacity of SWTP (2 ML over 24 hours). Removal of the two existing condition internal surface water storage depressions located upstream of the East Reservoir. Process water collection area of approximately 7.3 ha. South SWTP treated volume of approximately 2 ML/day. South Reservoir active storage volume of 56,000 m 3 as per conceptual drawings. South Reservoir outlet flow rate (pumped) of 23.1 L/s as per capacity of South SWTP (2 ML over 24 hours). Note: 1. CCME: Canadian Water Quality Objectives for the protection of aquatic life as published by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 2012). Future Baseline Considerations & Surface water will continue to be treated via the on-site SWTP prior to controlled off-site release. Chemical composition of overland flow collected by the interior perimeter ditches is not expected to change significantly as it will continue to be representative of direct water runoff from the non-impacted areas of the site. Chemical migration of contaminants from the waste to the interior perimeter ditches by way of the shallow groundwater system may take <10 to 1,000 years. S-Pit remediation will be completed. A perimeter LCS and engineered cap will be constructed around the pre landfill area. Design involves an increase in the total waste footprint which must consider the long-term effects of the closed capped existing landfill site. East Reservoir active storage volume of 36,000 m 3 as per completed survey and existing condition. East Reservoir outlet flow rate (pumped) of 16 L/s as per existing ECA and existing condition. SWTP treated volume of approximately 2 ML/day (increased from current operating rates). West Reservoir active storage volume of 25,000 m 3 as per completed survey and existing condition. West Reservoir outlet flow rate (pumped) of 23.1 L/s as per capacity of SWTP (2 ML over 24 hours). Removal of the two existing condition internal surface water storage depressions located upstream of the East Reservoir. Process water collection area of approximately 7.3 ha. Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects Maximum impact to surface water quality is anticipated via groundwater discharge to the interior perimeter ditches and is anticipated to occur within a few decades following the completion of the final waste cell. Discharge of chloride from the waste to surface waters is estimated to be at 1,385,154 kg/year (RWDI, 2014). Potential increase in runoff volume and peak flow rate to the site outlets. Ensure connection from agricultural drains is severed below the outside of the perimeter berms during construction to maintain the hydraulic barrier to the site. The SWTP can be modified or enhanced to address changes in water volumes required for treatment prior to controlled off-site release. Off-site surface water impacts are effectively mitigated as treated surface waters will continue to be held on-site until analytical results confirm the surface water is of a suitable quality for off-site release. A holding pond, to manage treated effluent prior to off-site release is recommended for Alternative 2 as it provides a greater capacity to manage / store unfavourable water quality conditions on-site until such time as unfavourable water quality conditions can be corrected prior to off-site release. Ensure detailed design of on-site surface water quantity control storage and conveyance is appropriately sized to meet the site operational practice. Maximum mass discharge of chloride from the waste to surface waters is estimated to be at 1,385,154 kg/year (RWDI, 2014). The net effect to surface water under Alternative 2 will result in an overall increase in chloride loadings of 1,179,021 kg/yr or 672% in comparison to that predicted for the future baseline (206,135 kg/yr). If the SWTP cannot be designed, maintained and operated in such a way that chloride is effectively removed from surface waters in treated effluent, then it is anticipated that the increased chloride loadings under Alternative 2 may result in an exceedance of CCME 1 guidelines for the longterm protection of aquatic life. Net Effects on the North Outlet: Alternative 2 results in no change in surface water quantity volume and peak flow over the future baseline condition. Net Effects on the South Outlet: Alternative 2 results in a notable increase in surface water quantity volume over the future baseline condition. Peak flow rate is improved through the implementation of the south surface water reservoir. 6-58

62 Extended Site Life Surface Water Quality Under Alternative 1, there is no anticipated mass discharge of chloride from the waste to surface waters. This is attributed to the installation of an engineered cover and installation of a perimeter LCS. It is expected that the LCS perimeter hydraulic control trench will be designed, maintained and operated in such a way that it will continue to function indefinitely. As such, the extended site life is not anticipated to influence the assessment of environmental effects as they relate to surface water quality. Under Alternative 2, the maximum impact to surface water quality within the interior perimeter ditches is anticipated to be a few decades beyond the completion of the final waste cell (i.e., under post closure conditions). As such, if site life is extended beyond 25 years, this may delay the timeframe in which the maximum effect is observed under this alternative. However, the scenario considered in the net effects assessment is the worst-case / maximum impact scenario and as this will not occur until decades beyond site closure, an extended site life is not anticipated to influence the assessment of environmental effects as they relate to surface water quality as effects associated with the worst-case scenario have already been identified and assessed. Surface Water Quantity Surface water quantity control is to be provided through the design and implementation of appropriate infrastructure. As such, if the operational life of the landfill is extended beyond 25 years, no negative effects on surface water quantity are anticipated Natural Environment (Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems) The natural environment net effects analysis utilized the findings of the Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report (Appendix D9, Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report), conditions associated with the currently approved landfill at closure, and the Conceptual Design Report (Appendix E) to evaluate the two landfill expansion alternatives, in accordance with the methodology as outlined in the approved ToR. The natural environment evaluation reviewed the: predicted impact on vegetation communities due to landfill footprint, construction and operations; the 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; and the presence of known or identified Species at Risk and their habitats and the predicted impact of the proposed footprint, construction and operation on-site. The following section details the net effects analysis as it relates to the natural environment discipline (Appendix F7, Natural Environment Net Effects Analysis and Comparative Evaluation Report). Table 6-32 and Table 6-33 provide a summary of the findings Alternative 1 Terrestrial Ecosystems Design Considerations & Vegetation Communities Most of the woodland at the existing site is part of a contiguous forest block that qualifies as Significant Woodland. Under Alternative 1, two portions of significant woodlot from the southeast woodlot (amounting to

63 ha at the northwest corner and 0.86 ha at the southwest corner) are proposed for removal. In addition, a narrow strip amounting to 0.15 ha would be removed from the southeast edge of the southwest woodlot for a total of 1.51 ha of Significant Woodland removal. In addition, a portion of a deciduous swamp wetland unit totalling 0.2 ha in the southeast woodlot will be removed. It is recommended to create and restore an area of wetland habitat in an area that is equal to that which is removed, to be detailed in a Habitat Compensation Plan prepared as part of the detailed design and ECA. In addition, forest restoration should occur (which is equal to the amount of forest removed) through compensation plantings of similar species composition, or native tree and shrub species appropriate to the site. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, no net loss of vegetation communities are anticipated; however, there will be a longer term loss of 0.2 ha of mature swamp and 1.51 ha of mature forest as these areas will take many decades to mature. Creating new forest edge (i.e., cutting into the firm edge of woodlot) allows disturbance effects to penetrate deeper into the interior of the forest reducing its natural quality. In particular, new edges make trees more susceptible to windthrow, sunscald and desiccation. New edges also facilitate the spread of invasive plants. Alternative 1 creates two areas of new forest edges on the southeast woodlot (70 m and 180 m) and two on the southwest woodlot (140 m and 60 m) for a total of 450 m of new edge. The 450 m of new forest edge will grow in naturally after several years minimizing edge effects. Finally, 0.77 ha and 0.3 ha of less functional cultural woodland would be removed from the southwest woodlot and southeast woodlot, respectively (Figure 6-13). There will be a net loss of 0.77 ha and 0.3 of other, natural vegetation from the southwest and southeast woodlot; however, effects are considered minor due to the lower quality of the vegetation. Wildlife Habitat The vegetation that would be removed with Alternative 1 all provides some form of wildlife habitat. The forest portion qualifies as Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) under the SWH Technical Guidelines (MNR, 2010) because it is habitat for a provincially significant wildlife species, the Giant Swallowtail butterfly. Compensation planting of Prickly-ash will be detailed in a Habitat Compensation Plan to provide foraging habitat for adult Giant Swallowtails. With the compensation planting, no net loss of habitat for the Giant Swallowtail is anticipated. The Alternative 1 design does not encroach on the south woodlot and as such will not result in severing the wildlife corridor. There is likely to be wildlife avoidance along the two new edges of the southeast woodlot (70 m and 180 m) for a total length of 250 m. This is a different impact from new edge (which is a vegetation impact) as there are anticipated to be disturbances that will affect wildlife habitat use. In particular noise from truck traffic, dust and human presence will cause some sensitive wildlife such as breeding birds and mammals to avoid a habitat edge where there is frequent human activity, thereby reducing the overall area of habitat that is available to them. There is likely to be frequent and prolonged activity by heavy equipment and landfill personnel while the southeast corner of the landfill is developed. 6-60

64 0.30 ha Cultural Woodland ha Swamp 0.45 ha Cultural Woodland 0.32 ha Cultural Woodland 0.5 ha Forest 0.86 ha Forest 180m± New Edge 180m± Wildlife Avoidance 60m New Edge 0.15 ha Forest Southeast Woodlot ha Swamp Southwest Woodlot 140m New Edge 70m± Wildlife Avoidance 70m± New Edge NOTES: 1. BASE FILE WAS TAKEN FROM FIGURE 1, "PLAN VIEW ALTERNATIVE METHOD 1", PROJECT NO , DATED NOVEMBER 2013, PROVIDED BY CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES. Legend: Lambton Landfill Expansion Significant Woodland (Mature Forest) Removal Wetland Vegetation Removal Other Vegetation Removal N New Forest Edge Wildlife Avoidance Edge Terrestrial Impacts from Alternative 1 May 2014 Project m 1 : 4000 Figure 6-13 P:\ \GIS\000-CADD\040 CADD-BIM WIP\Ch 6 Figures\02-SHEETS\02-Terrestrial Impact - Final\ BA-Fig 3&4-Terrestrial Impacts.dwg

65 Amphibian Habitat Amphibian habitat is discussed separately from wildlife habitat to be consistent with the ToR. One important amphibian breeding site in the southeast woodlot (which provides habitat for three amphibian species and meets the criteria for SWH) will be removed and three other minor amphibian breeding sites (which do not qualify as SWH) will also be removed. With the creation of wetland areas described above, there will be a shift in amphibian breeding locations; however, no net loss is anticipated. Species at Risk The small rectangular disposal cell located in the southwest corner of the site will require the removal of one Butternut tree, which is an Endangered species. Compensation planting for Butternut removal in a ratio of 20:1 (as the tree is measured at 16 cm approximately 1.3 m above ground) will occur following the appropriate guidelines. With the compensation planting for Butternut removal and the survival of the seedlings, no net effects on Butternuts is anticipated. Aquatic Ecosystems Design Considerations & No changes to the overall function of the exterior portions of the perimeter berm that drains to the road side ditches are proposed. It is expected that water generated from storm events at the site will continue to be contained and managed within the site. Surface water directed to the interior perimeter ditches will continue to be treated by way of the SWTP prior to controlled off-site release. Limited on-site aquatic habitat is not expected to change as the Equalization Reservoir, which provides an isolated off-line for a small forage fish community, will not be altered by Alternative 1. It is expected that the existing SWTP will be maintained and if necessary will be modified / enhanced to address any changes in volume of water to be treated in excess of current SWTP capacity and that discharge to the offsite receivers will be managed such that the maximum rate of discharge will not be greater than downstream ditch capacity. Discharge from the site under Alternative 1 will continue through controlled gated release and will be governed by discharge criteria set forth in a site specific ECA. A permanent barrier to fish passage between on-site and off-site is expected to persist under Alternative 1. In the event of unfavourable water quality, it is expected, as per current practice that the SWTP will enter into recirculation mode until such time that favourable results suitable for off-site discharge are met Alternative 2 Terrestrial Ecosystems Design Considerations & Vegetation Communities Alternative 2 will require the construction of an access road through the south woodlot removing an area of mature deciduous forest vegetation that is approximately 20 m wide and 100 m in length comprising 0.25 ha. A narrow strip of deciduous woodlot, approximately 0.15 ha, would also be removed from the southeast edge of the southwest woodlot under Alternative 2 for a total of 0.4 ha of woodland removal. Under Alternative 2, the proposed site access road was routed to avoid wetland units It is recommended to create and restore an area of woodland habitat in an area that is equal to that which is removed, to be detailed in a Habitat Compensation Plan prepared as part of the detailed design and ECA. This should consist of compensation plantings of similar species composition, or native tree and shrub species appropriate to the site. 6-62

66 With the implementation of the mitigation measures, such as restoration of forest areas, no net loss of vegetation communities are anticipated; however, there will be a longer term loss of 0.4 ha of mature forest as these areas will take many decades to mature. A new forest edge would be created for 200 m along the access road through the south woodlot and along two edges of the southwest woodlot (140 and 60 m) for a total of 400 m of new edge (Figure 6-14). The 400 m of new forest edge will grow in naturally after several years minimizing edge effects. A total of 1.2 ha of hedgerow will be removed from the southern property as well as 0.77 ha of cultural woodland from the southwest woodlot resulting in 1.97 ha of other vegetation removal. There will be a net loss of 1.97 ha of other, natural vegetation; however, effects are considered minor due to the lower quality of the vegetation. Wildlife Habitat The vegetation that would be removed with Alternative 2 provides some form of wildlife habitat. The forest portion qualifies as SWH under the SWH Technical Guidelines (MNR, 2010) because it is habitat for a provincially significant wildlife species, the Giant Swallowtail butterfly. Compensation planting of Prickly-ash will be detailed in a Habitat Compensation Plan to provide foraging habitat for adult Giant Swallowtails. With the compensation planting, no net loss of habitat for the Giant Swallowtail is anticipated. A portion of the south woodlot qualifies as a wildlife corridor under the Significant Woodland criteria (MNR, 2010). Under Alternative 2, the proposed site access road would cross the south woodlot where it is approximately 100 m in length and 20 m wide. This 20 m wide gap would form a barrier for wildlife movement with limited mobility such as amphibians and small mammals, particularly during the day when there will be frequent disturbance and traffic through this road. Alternative 2 will also require installing a high chain link fence along the west side of the study area at Telfer Road and the east side of the study area boundary. This would restrict movement of large and medium-sized mammals between core habitat blocks to the east and west of the corridor. It is recommended to minimize nighttime vehicle use through the wildlife corridor where possible to allow wildlife passage at night. Speed restrictions should also be imposed through wildlife corridor to minimize potential wildlife mortality. Alternative 2 may also result in disturbance causing wildlife avoidance along the southern edge of the south woodlot for a length of 1,140 m. Although no vegetation removal will occur along the edge, there are anticipated to be other disturbances that will affect wildlife habitat use. In particular noise from truck traffic, dust and human presence will cause some sensitive wildlife such as breeding birds and mammals to avoid the south edge of the woodlot, thereby reducing the overall area of habitat available. In particular the north edge of Alternative 2 contains an equipment laydown area, a mixing area and general active working area, therefore, there is likely to be frequent and prolonged activity by heavy equipment and landfill personnel. There is an additional 140 m edge where sensitive wildlife is likely to avoid where the access road is proposed along the east edge of the southwest woodlot for a total of 1,280 m of wildlife avoidance. Amphibian Habitat Alternative 2 would result in the removal of one important amphibian breeding site which provides habitat for four amphibian species and meets the criteria for SWH. Two other minor amphibian breeding sites (which do not qualify as SWH) will also be removed. With the creation of wetland areas described above, there will be a shift in amphibian breeding locations; however, no net loss is anticipated. 6-63

67 0.45 ha Cultural Woodland 0.32 ha Cultural Woodland 60m New Edge 0.15 ha Forest Southwest Woodlot 140m Wildlife Avoidance 140m New Edge 0.25 ha Forest Southeast Woodlot 100m± New Edge 100m± Wildlife Avoidance 100m± New Edge 100m± Wildlife Avoidance 200m± Wildlife Avoidance 740m Wildlife Avoidance Edge South Woodlot 0.13 ha Hedgerow 0.80 ha Hedgerow 0.27 ha Hedgerow NOTES: 1. BASE FILE WAS TAKEN FROM FIGURE 2 "PLAN VIEW ALTERNATIVE METHOD 2" AND FIGURE 14 "FACILITY ACCESS PLAN ALTERNATIVE METHOD 2", PROJECT NO , DATED NOVEMBER 2013, PROVIDED BY CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES. N Legend: Mature Forest Vegetation Removal Other Vegetation Removal Hedgerow New Forest Edge Wildlife Avoidance Edge Lambton Landfill Expansion Terrestrial Impacts from Alternative 2 May 2014 Project m 1 : 4000 Figure 6-14

Natural Environment Existing Conditions Terrestrial

Natural Environment Existing Conditions Terrestrial 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

More information

Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives West Carleton Environmental Centre. Option #4 Impact on Agriculture

Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives West Carleton Environmental Centre. Option #4 Impact on Agriculture Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives Figure 422 99 Option #4 Impact on Agriculture The net effects with respect to continued service to customers, the optimized site life/ capacity is 65 million

More information

Information Requirements Table for Liquid Waste

Information Requirements Table for Liquid Waste Applicant Summary Tracking # Authorization # Applicant / Facility Name Ministry of Environment Prepared by: Title Date The Information Requirements Table (IRT) for Liquid Waste is a tool used by Ministry

More information

AECOM, November 2012: Clean Harbors 2012 Annual Surface Water Monitoring Report. Prepared for Clean Harbors Canada, Inc.

AECOM, November 2012: Clean Harbors 2012 Annual Surface Water Monitoring Report. Prepared for Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. References AECOM, November 2012: Clean Harbors 2012 Annual Surface Water Monitoring Report. Prepared for Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. AECOM, 2014: Surface Water Existing Conditions Report. Prepared for Clean

More information

Noront Ferrochrome Production Facility (FPF) Environmental Issues and Approach. October 2017

Noront Ferrochrome Production Facility (FPF) Environmental Issues and Approach. October 2017 Noront Ferrochrome Production Facility (FPF) Environmental Issues and Approach October 2017 (Simulated FPF) INTRODUCTION Noront is proposing to develop a Ferrochrome Production Facility (FPF) in Northern

More information

AECOM, 2014: Surface Water Existing Conditions Report. Prepared for Clean Harbors Canada, Inc.

AECOM, 2014: Surface Water Existing Conditions Report. Prepared for Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. References AECOM, 2014: Surface Water Existing Conditions Report. Prepared for Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. ASI, 2009: Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment. Prepared for Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Cadman, M.D.,

More information

Appendix B. Commitments made in the Approved Terms of Reference

Appendix B. Commitments made in the Approved Terms of Reference Appendix B Commitments made in the Approved Terms of Reference Approved Terms of Reference Requirements and How They Were in the 1. The study area considered for the new landfill footprint at the West

More information

GUIDE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN IN NEW BRUNSWICK

GUIDE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN IN NEW BRUNSWICK PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT Minerals and Petroleum Development Branch GUIDE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN IN NEW BRUNSWICK Guide to the

More information

(this cover page left intentionally blank)

(this cover page left intentionally blank) 4. Siting the Well (this cover page left intentionally blank) 4. Siting the Well Chapter Table of Contents Chapter Table of Contents Chapter Description... 4 Regulatory Requirements Well Siting... 4 Relevant

More information

Environmental Assessment Matrix

Environmental Assessment Matrix For FCC Use Only Date: Customer Name: Environmental Assessment Matrix Loan Number: Please complete each question. Some answers may require additional information. Attach additional documentation where

More information

ENVIRONMENT ACT TERMS OF REFERENCE NOVA SCOTIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS. Beaver Bank Bypass

ENVIRONMENT ACT TERMS OF REFERENCE NOVA SCOTIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS. Beaver Bank Bypass ENVIRONMENT ACT TERMS OF REFERENCE NOVA SCOTIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS Beaver Bank Bypass Highway 101 to the Beaver Bank Road Halifax County, NS NOVA SCOTIA DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

More information

Viridor Waste Management. Proposed Development of an In-Vessel Composting Facility. Land at Exide Batteries, Salford Road, Bolton

Viridor Waste Management. Proposed Development of an In-Vessel Composting Facility. Land at Exide Batteries, Salford Road, Bolton Viridor Waste Management Proposed Development of an In-Vessel Composting Facility Land at Exide Batteries, Salford Road, Bolton Non-Technical Summary January 2009 Introduction Viridor Waste Management

More information

Portbury Dock Renewable Energy Plant. Cumulative Impact Assessment Non-Technical Summary September 2009

Portbury Dock Renewable Energy Plant. Cumulative Impact Assessment Non-Technical Summary September 2009 Portbury Dock Renewable Energy Plant Cumulative Impact Assessment Non-Technical Summary September 2009 INTRODUCTION On 28 th August 2009 E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Developments Limited (EC&R) submitted

More information

Environmental Impact Statement for the Slave Falls Tramway Conversion Project

Environmental Impact Statement for the Slave Falls Tramway Conversion Project Environmental Impact Statement for the Slave Falls Tramway Conversion Project Prepared for Submitted by 41844.101 March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SLAVE FALLS TRAMWAY CONVERSION PROJECT

More information

Summary Statement PLANNING REPORT & AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT. Part of Lot 3, Concessions 1 and 2, Township of Clearview, County of Simcoe OSTER PIT

Summary Statement PLANNING REPORT & AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT. Part of Lot 3, Concessions 1 and 2, Township of Clearview, County of Simcoe OSTER PIT PLANNING REPORT & AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT Summary Statement OSTER PIT Part of Lot 3, Concessions 1 and 2, Township of Clearview, County of Simcoe Date: October 2016 Prepared for: Lafarge Canada Inc. Prepared

More information

Introduction. They can help ensure that all key issues and elements have been considered; They help ensure that the review process is systematic; and

Introduction. They can help ensure that all key issues and elements have been considered; They help ensure that the review process is systematic; and Introduction There are many tools that a reviewer of environmental impact assessment documents can use to help determine whether such documents are complete and adequate. Among the powerful tools that

More information

Shell Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project. Shell Canada Limited

Shell Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project. Shell Canada Limited SCREENING SCOPING DOCUMENT For the proposed Shell Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Shell Canada Limited Prepared by: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Natural Resources Canada Fisheries

More information

Environmental Information Worksheet

Environmental Information Worksheet Environmental Information Worksheet Water System Owner (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Needs and Alternatives Provide a brief narrative that describes: Current drinking water system needs. Project

More information

Streamlines V2, n2 (May 1997) A Newsletter for North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Administrators

Streamlines V2, n2 (May 1997) A Newsletter for North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Administrators Page 1 of 5 STREAMLINES A Newsletter for North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Administrators Volume 2, Number 2 May 1997 Non-Point Source (NPS) Pollution This issue of Streamlines provides basic information

More information

COLE ENGINEERING GROUP LTD.

COLE ENGINEERING GROUP LTD. CITY OF MARKHAM PROJECT FILE Stormwater Management Facilities Retrofit Municipal Class EA ES12-0316 COLE ENGINEERING GROUP LTD SEPTEMBER 2015 [ Month Year ] HEAD OFFICE 70 Valleywood Drive Markham, ON

More information

City of Ottawa. Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines. 2 nd Edition April 2012

City of Ottawa. Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines. 2 nd Edition April 2012 DOCUMENT 1 City of Ottawa Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines 2 nd Edition April 2012 Planning and Infrastructure Portfolio Planning and Growth Management Department Policy Development and Urban

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) SCREENING SUMMARY TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada) is proposing to conduct a contaminant sampling

More information

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS DISPOSAL SITE GUIDELINES

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS DISPOSAL SITE GUIDELINES Nova Scotia Environment and Labour CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS DISPOSAL SITE GUIDELINES Approval Date: October 24, 1997 Effective Date: October 24, 1997 Approved By: Peter Underwood Version Control:

More information

Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Lambton Facility 4090 Telfer Road, R.R. #1 Corunna, Ontario N0N 1G Annual Landfill Report Executive Summary

Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Lambton Facility 4090 Telfer Road, R.R. #1 Corunna, Ontario N0N 1G Annual Landfill Report Executive Summary Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Lambton Facility 4090 Telfer Road, R.R. #1 Corunna, Ontario N0N 1G0 2007 Annual Landfill Report Executive Summary 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Scope Clean Harbors Canada,

More information

WATERSHED. Maitland Valley. Report Card 201

WATERSHED. Maitland Valley. Report Card 201 Maitland Valley WATERSHED Report Card 201 The Maitland Valley Conservation Authority has prepared this report card as a summary on the state of our forests, wetlands, surface water, and ground water resources.

More information

Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Final Report

Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Final Report Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Final Report Prepared by: Tel: 289.205.0618 Fax: 519.823.1316 RWDI AIR Inc. 1100

More information

APPENDIX 2. Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour Environmental Assessment Terms and Conditions for Environmental Assessment Approval

APPENDIX 2. Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour Environmental Assessment Terms and Conditions for Environmental Assessment Approval APPENDIX 2 Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour Terms and Conditions for Approval Approval Approval Date: March 14, 2007 Keltic Petrochemicals Inc. LNG and Petrochemical Plant Facilities Keltic

More information

Solid Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Inspection Report

Solid Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Inspection Report Ministry of the Environment Ministère de l Environnement Solid n-hazardous Waste Disposal Site Inspection Report Client: Inspection Site Address: The Corporation of the Municipality of Southwest Middlesex

More information

Policy for the Assessment and Mitigation of Traffic Noise on County Roads

Policy for the Assessment and Mitigation of Traffic Noise on County Roads Lanark County Policy for the Assessment and Mitigation of Traffic Noise on County Roads d r a f t f o r d i s c u s s i o n Prepared by: AECOM Canada Ltd. 302 1150 Morrison Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada K2H

More information

Cornwall Solar Project Renewable Energy Approval Modification Report

Cornwall Solar Project Renewable Energy Approval Modification Report Cornwall Solar Project Renewable Energy Approval Modification Report Algonquin Power Co 2845 Bristol Circle Oakville ON, L6H 7H7 Contents Contents... 1 Introduction... 2 Summary and Rational for Minor

More information

Annesley Andalusite Mine: Section 24G Rectification Process. Consultation with community members 15 June 2017

Annesley Andalusite Mine: Section 24G Rectification Process. Consultation with community members 15 June 2017 Annesley Andalusite Mine: Section 24G Rectification Process Consultation with community members 15 June 2017 AGENDA Welcome and introduction Meeting protocol Purpose of the meeting Project background Project

More information

Soil Treatment Facility Design and Operation for Bioremediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil. Version 1.0

Soil Treatment Facility Design and Operation for Bioremediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil. Version 1.0 PROTOCOL 15 FOR CONTAMINATED SITES Soil Treatment Facility Design and Operation for Bioremediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil Version 1.0 Prepared pursuant to Section 64 of the Environmental Management

More information

KENT BREEZE WIND FARMS

KENT BREEZE WIND FARMS Decommissioning Plan Report MAY 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 2. DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS DESCRIPTION... 2 3. SITE RESTORATION... 3 4. EXCESS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT... 4 5. MANAGING

More information

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Mining and Minerals Regulation. Regulation of Mines. Howard J. Hayes, Program Administrator

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Mining and Minerals Regulation. Regulation of Mines. Howard J. Hayes, Program Administrator Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Mining and Minerals Regulation Regulation of Mines Howard J. Hayes, Program Administrator April 2011 What is a mine? Nonphosphate mine: Subsections

More information

GIOFAM SEBRIGHT QUARRY APPLICATION UPDATE AND COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS

GIOFAM SEBRIGHT QUARRY APPLICATION UPDATE AND COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS GIOFAM SEBRIGHT QUARRY APPLICATION UPDATE AND COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS February 2, 2012 GIOFAM SEBRIGHT QUARRY APPLICATION UPDATE AND COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC AND AGENCY

More information

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. Question 13: Wetlands

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. Question 13: Wetlands SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Question 13: Wetlands 1. The wetland responses and topographical data provided in the ADA for the 520- acre project site are conceptual in nature. The referenced

More information

The following potential environmental receptors and impacts form the basis of TRCA s review under Ontario Regulation 166/06 and the Fisheries Act:

The following potential environmental receptors and impacts form the basis of TRCA s review under Ontario Regulation 166/06 and the Fisheries Act: TRCA Technical Guidelines for the Development of Environmental Management Plans for Dewatering September 2013 Rationale: The Technical Guidelines for the Development of Environmental Management Plans for

More information

7.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES AND IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED SITE

7.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES AND IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED SITE 7.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES AND IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED SITE As an initial step during the EA, Taggart Miller undertook a comparative Site selection assessment to identify a preferred

More information

Advice to decision maker on coal mining project

Advice to decision maker on coal mining project . Advice to decision maker on coal mining project IESC 2015-063: West Muswellbrook Project New Development Requesting agency The New South Wales Mining and Petroleum Gateway Panel Date of request 27 January

More information

Alouette Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Program Terms of Reference

Alouette Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Program Terms of Reference Monitoring Program Terms of Reference ALUMON#1 Smolt Enumeration ALUMON#2 Kokanee Out-migration ALUMON#3 Substrate Quality ALUMON#4 Sockeye Adult Enumeration ALUMON#5 Water Temperature ALUMON#6 Kokanee

More information

Erosion & Sedimentation Control Policy

Erosion & Sedimentation Control Policy Issue Date 10/22/2010 Page 1 of 8 Erosion & Sedimentation Control Policy Introduction: Soil erosion is the removal of soil by water, wind, ice or gravity and sediment deposition occurs when the rate of

More information

Factor Potential Effects Mitigation Measures

Factor Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Natural Environment No impacts of provincial significance to the natural environment are anticipated for the rapid transit project. Other impacts and how they will be mitigated are outlined in the table

More information

2015 ANNUAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION REPORT ENTERGY INDEPENDENCE PLANT CLASS 3N LANDFILL PERMIT NO S3N-R2 AFIN:

2015 ANNUAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION REPORT ENTERGY INDEPENDENCE PLANT CLASS 3N LANDFILL PERMIT NO S3N-R2 AFIN: 2015 ANNUAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION REPORT ENTERGY INDEPENDENCE PLANT CLASS 3N LANDFILL PERMIT NO. 0200-S3N-R2 AFIN: 32-00042 JANUARY 15, 2016 ENTERGY INDEPENDENCE PLANT CLASS 3N LANDFILL 2015 ANNUAL ENGINEERING

More information

Air Quality Assessment Report Paris Grand Development County of Brant, Ontario

Air Quality Assessment Report Paris Grand Development County of Brant, Ontario Air Quality Assessment Report Paris Grand Development County of Brant, Ontario Novus Reference No. 16-0214 NOVUS TEAM: Technical Coordinator: Air Quality Engineer: Project Director: Laura Clark, B.Eng.,

More information

Clifton Marsh Landfill Variation of planning permission 05/09/0376 & 06/09/0395 for the continuation of landfilling until Non Technical Summary

Clifton Marsh Landfill Variation of planning permission 05/09/0376 & 06/09/0395 for the continuation of landfilling until Non Technical Summary Clifton Marsh Landfill Variation of planning permission 05/09/0376 & 06/09/0395 for the continuation of landfilling until 2035 Non Technical Summary SLR Consulting Limited Project Ref: 403.00079.00474

More information

STORMWATER RUNOFF AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT REVIEW

STORMWATER RUNOFF AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT REVIEW SUBCHAPTER 8 STORMWATER RUNOFF AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT REVIEW 7:45-8.1 Purpose and scope of review Except for those projects expressly exempted by this chapter or waived by the Commission, the Commission

More information

CLC Meeting 23 November 23, 2016 FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS, CLIMATE CHANGE & PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

CLC Meeting 23 November 23, 2016 FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS, CLIMATE CHANGE & PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS CLC Meeting 23 November 23, 2016 FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS, CLIMATE CHANGE & PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS 1 Agenda 1. Preliminary Facility Characteristics 2. Climate Change Assumptions 3. Preliminary Planning Assumptions

More information

Alternative Futures for the City of La Paz, Mexico

Alternative Futures for the City of La Paz, Mexico O N T H E G R O U N D Alternative Futures for the City of La Paz, Mexico Caroline Dragoo University of Arizona and Robert Faris Harvard University La Paz, Mexico is working hard not to turn into Cabo San

More information

Guide to Content for Energy Project Applications

Guide to Content for Energy Project Applications Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Guide to Content for Energy Project Applications March 29, 2014 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 General Instructions... 7 Part 1: New Plants and Facilities...

More information

Solid Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Inspection Report

Solid Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Inspection Report Ministry of the Environment Ministère de l Environnement Solid n-hazardous Waste Disposal Site Inspection Report Client: Inspection Site Address: The Corporation of the Municipality of Southwest Middlesex

More information

Closure Plan Ash Disposal Area PGE Boardman Power Plant

Closure Plan Ash Disposal Area PGE Boardman Power Plant FIRST ISSUE REVISION 0 Closure Plan Ash Disposal Area PGE Boardman Power Plant Prepared for Portland General Electric September 2015 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97201 This document was

More information

NEW CASTLE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. through. (Name of Municipality) PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION DRAINAGE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL

NEW CASTLE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. through. (Name of Municipality) PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION DRAINAGE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NEW CASTLE CONSERVATION DISTRICT through (Name of Municipality) PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION DRAINAGE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL Office use only: Received by Municipality: Received by

More information

GENERAL SPECIFICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION IN WATERBODIES AND ON WATERBODY BANKS

GENERAL SPECIFICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION IN WATERBODIES AND ON WATERBODY BANKS ONTARIO PROVINCIAL STANDARD SPECIFICATION METRIC OPSS.PROV 182 NOVEMBER 2012 GENERAL SPECIFICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION IN WATERBODIES AND ON WATERBODY BANKS TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

Preface. MNR # Queen s Printer for Ontario, 2012 ISBN (PRINT) ISBN (PDF)

Preface. MNR # Queen s Printer for Ontario, 2012 ISBN (PRINT) ISBN (PDF) Preface In 2008, the inter-agency Drainage Act & Section 28 Regulations Team (DART) was established by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)

More information

Presentation to RCCAO: Excess Soil Management: A Guide for Best Management Practices. Central Region Operations Division.

Presentation to RCCAO: Excess Soil Management: A Guide for Best Management Practices. Central Region Operations Division. Presentation to RCCAO: Excess Soil Management: A Guide for Best Management Practices Central Region Operations Division March 3, 2014 Outline Purpose: To provide an update on the finalized Excess Soil

More information

EMISSION SUMMARY AND DISPERSION MODELLING REPORT

EMISSION SUMMARY AND DISPERSION MODELLING REPORT 1 EMISSION SUMMARY AND DISPERSION MODELLING REPORT Interior Heart and Surgical Centre Project (IHSC) Kelowna General Hospital Kelowna, British Columbia Prepared for PCL Constructors Westcoast Inc. Report

More information

PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR CANADIAN NATURAL RESOURCES LIMITED HORIZON NORTH PIT EXTENSION PROJECT

PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR CANADIAN NATURAL RESOURCES LIMITED HORIZON NORTH PIT EXTENSION PROJECT PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR CANADIAN NATURAL RESOURCES LIMITED HORIZON NORTH PIT EXTENSION PROJECT Approximately 70 km North of Fort McMurray, Alberta ISSUED

More information

Campbell River Environmental Committee 2353 Dolly Varden Road Campbell River, BC V9W 4W5 (Via ) Attention: Leona Adams

Campbell River Environmental Committee 2353 Dolly Varden Road Campbell River, BC V9W 4W5 (Via  ) Attention: Leona Adams October 17, 2016 16-27 Campbell River Environmental Committee 2353 Dolly Varden Road Campbell River, BC V9W 4W5 (Via email) Attention: Leona Adams Re: Review of Upland Excavating Landfill Application Technical

More information

TES Industrial Development SW ¼ SEC Lacombe County Outline Plan

TES Industrial Development SW ¼ SEC Lacombe County Outline Plan TES Industrial Development Lacombe County Outline Plan 112849297 June 2012 am v:\1128\active\112849297\07_reports_studies\rpt_tes_20120508.doc i Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1 PURPOSE... 1

More information

Ottawa-Trussler Area Sewage Facility Class Environmental Assessment

Ottawa-Trussler Area Sewage Facility Class Environmental Assessment Welcome to the Ottawa-Trussler Area Sewage Facility Class Environmental Assessment Public Open House May 7, 2013 September 25, 2013 Welcome The purpose of this second Public Open House is to: Present the

More information

Table of Contents. City of Redlands - Redlands Crossing Center

Table of Contents. City of Redlands - Redlands Crossing Center City of Redlands - Redlands Crossing Center Executive Summary... ES-1 Section 1: Introduction...1-1 1.1 - Overview of the CEQA Process...1-1 1.2 - Scope of the EIR...1-5 1.3 - Organization of the EIR...1-8

More information

4.8. Subsurface Infiltration

4.8. Subsurface Infiltration 4.8. Subsurface Infiltration Subsurface infiltration systems are designed to provide temporary below grade storage infiltration of stormwater as it infiltrates into the ground. Dry wells, infiltration

More information

Section SNOW DISPOSAL SITE DESIGN CRITERIA

Section SNOW DISPOSAL SITE DESIGN CRITERIA Section 2.150 SNOW DISPOSAL SITE DESIGN CRITERIA 2.150 A. Introduction Snow disposal sites provide storage areas for snowfall that exceeds the storage capacity of street rights-of-way and other public

More information

PNNL Darlington Nuclear Power Plant Project Review of Ontario Power Generation s Assessment of Cooling Towers for Condenser Cooling

PNNL Darlington Nuclear Power Plant Project Review of Ontario Power Generation s Assessment of Cooling Towers for Condenser Cooling PNNL-20206 Darlington Nuclear Power Plant Project Review of Ontario Power Generation s Assessment of Cooling Towers for Condenser Cooling February 2011 PNNL-20206 Darlington Nuclear Power Plant Project

More information

Application For Waste Regulation (Check all that apply)

Application For Waste Regulation (Check all that apply) Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING DIVISION 1 North University Drive, Mailbox #201 Plantation, Florida 33324 954-519-1483 FAX 954-519-1412

More information

List of Technical Reports and Maps of W12A Landfill

List of Technical Reports and Maps of W12A Landfill Hydrogeological Reports List of Technical Reports and Maps of W12A Landfill Pleistocene Geology of the St. Thomas Area (East Half), Ontario Department of Mines, Map No. P.606, (Dreimanis, 1970) City of

More information

Rock Fill Layer Management and Maintenance Plan Former BNSF Site 13 Highway 99 Eugene, Oregon

Rock Fill Layer Management and Maintenance Plan Former BNSF Site 13 Highway 99 Eugene, Oregon Rock Fill Layer Management and Maintenance Plan 13 Highway 99 Prepared for: Half Moon LLC P.O. Box 25112 97402 PBS Project No. 51833.000 Rock Fill Layer Management and Maintenance Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

For PROPOSED IT PARK. By M/s.Balewadi Tech Park Pvt.Ltd. Submitted to State Environment Expert Appraisal Committee III, Maharashtra

For PROPOSED IT PARK. By M/s.Balewadi Tech Park Pvt.Ltd. Submitted to State Environment Expert Appraisal Committee III, Maharashtra Draft Terms of References (ToR) (Based on the model TOR given in Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for building construction projects by MoEF & CC) For PROPOSED IT PARK By M/s.Balewadi Tech

More information

Chapter 10 Natural Environment

Chapter 10 Natural Environment Chapter 10 Natural Environment Existing Conditions The Natural Environment Element addresses the protection, conservation, preservation, and restoration of the natural resources the Bayview Ridge Subarea,

More information

Canadian Solar Developers Ltd.

Canadian Solar Developers Ltd. Canadian Solar Developers Ltd. Type of Document Draft Report Project Name Proposed Ground Mount Solar Facility L.P #5 8338 Scotchmere Drive, Strathroy, ON OPA FIT Program: FIT-FL67GB5 Project Number V00002250-00

More information

Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Lambton Facility 4090 Telfer Road, R.R. #1 Corunna, Ontario N0N 1G Annual Landfill Report Executive Summary

Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Lambton Facility 4090 Telfer Road, R.R. #1 Corunna, Ontario N0N 1G Annual Landfill Report Executive Summary Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Lambton Facility 4090 Telfer Road, R.R. #1 Corunna, Ontario N0N 1G0 2016 Annual Landfill Report Executive Summary Table of Contents Executive Summary Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1

More information

9.3.9 Industry uses code

9.3.9 Industry uses code 9.3.9 Industry uses code 9.3.9.1 Application (1) This code applies to accepted development and assessable development identified as requiring assessment against the Industry uses code by the tables of

More information

E. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

E. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT E. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1. Existing Conditions The Project Site is located within the Lower Hudson Watershed. According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Lower Hudson

More information

Public Information Centre No. 2

Public Information Centre No. 2 Public Information Centre No. 2 Wednesday April 20, 2011 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm City of Welland City Hall Area 2 Welland, Pelham, and Port Colborne Welcome to Public Information Centre No. 2 Please sign in

More information

David Miller, P.E.- Atlanta. The New Coal Ash Regulations Wednesday, May 6, 2015

David Miller, P.E.- Atlanta. The New Coal Ash Regulations Wednesday, May 6, 2015 David Miller, P.E.- Atlanta The New Coal Ash Regulations Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Overview of CCR Management & Regulations Subtitle D Requirements & Compliance Schedule Non-Utility Boilers Beneficial Reuse

More information

BMP #: Infiltration Basin

BMP #: Infiltration Basin Structural BMP Criteria BMP #: Infiltration Basin An Infiltration Basin is a shallow impoundment that stores and infiltrates runoff over a level, subtle, uncompacted, (preferably undisturbed area) with

More information

Design and Operation of Landfills

Design and Operation of Landfills Design and Operation of Landfills Soils and hydrogeology Site selection criteria Site layout and landfill operations Liner design Water balance Biological reactions in landfills Leachate quality Gas production

More information

Comprehensive Study Scoping Document. for Lower Mattagami Hydroelectric Complex Redevelopment CEAR Reference Number:

Comprehensive Study Scoping Document. for Lower Mattagami Hydroelectric Complex Redevelopment CEAR Reference Number: Comprehensive Study Scoping Document for Lower Mattagami Hydroelectric Complex Redevelopment CEAR Reference Number: 07-03-26302 Prepared pursuant to Subsection 21(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES Version 1 September, 2012 Section 1 Environmental Impact Study Overview TABLE OF CONTENTS What is an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and What is its Purpose?.....................................

More information

2015 ANNUAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION REPORT ENTERGY WHITE BLUFF PLANT CLASS 3N LANDFILL PERMIT NO S3N-R3 AFIN:

2015 ANNUAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION REPORT ENTERGY WHITE BLUFF PLANT CLASS 3N LANDFILL PERMIT NO S3N-R3 AFIN: 2015 ANNUAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION REPORT ENTERGY WHITE BLUFF PLANT CLASS 3N LANDFILL PERMIT NO. 0199-S3N-R3 AFIN: 35-00110 JANUARY 15, 2016 ENTERGY WHITE BLUFF PLANT CLASS 3N LANDFILL 2015 ANNUAL ENGINEERING

More information

TORCH LAKE TOWNSHIP WATER QUALITY ACTION PLAN

TORCH LAKE TOWNSHIP WATER QUALITY ACTION PLAN TORCH LAKE TOWNSHIP WATER QUALITY ACTION PLAN Elk-River-Chain-of-Lakes Gaps Analysis Project The Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Michigan Department of Natural Resources

More information

Environment & Conservation Introduction

Environment & Conservation Introduction Environment & Conservation Introduction Anacortes is blessed with an abundance of natural beauty. Residents identify marine shorelines, streams, lakes, forested areas, and other natural features as defining

More information

The Lakes District and Schooner Cove Integrated Stormwater Management Plan Kerr Wood Leidal, Draft Report, July 2012 (revised October 2013)

The Lakes District and Schooner Cove Integrated Stormwater Management Plan Kerr Wood Leidal, Draft Report, July 2012 (revised October 2013) To: Jeremy Holm, Regional District of Nanaimo cc: Geoff Garbutt, Regional District of Nanaimo From: Dan Huang / Ehren Lee 1.0 INTRODUCTION Urban Systems has been asked to assist the Regional District of

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD STREET, BROOKSVILLE, FL 34604-6899 (352) 796-7211 OR FLORIDA WATS 1 (800) 423-1476 SECTION E INFORMATION

More information

Agricultural/Rural Riparian Buffer Analysis

Agricultural/Rural Riparian Buffer Analysis Agricultural/Rural Riparian Buffer Analysis December 2014 Executive Summary The Agricultural/Rural Riparian Buffer Analysis was developed from a 2014 analysis of current requirements for the riparian areas

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN. Environment Protection Authority, ACT May 2009

ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN. Environment Protection Authority, ACT May 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN Environment Protection Authority, ACT May 2009 ISBN-13: 978-0-642-60494-1 ISBN-10: 0-642-60494-0 Australian Capital Territory,

More information

Telephone Lake project

Telephone Lake project Telephone Lake project Cenovus Energy Inc. is a Canadian oil company. We re committed to applying fresh, progressive thinking to safely and responsibly unlock energy resources the world needs. Our operations

More information

List of Acronyms Units Glossary List of Acronyms

List of Acronyms Units Glossary List of Acronyms List of Acronyms 3Rs... Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada... AANDC Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System... ATRIS Acoustic Assessment Report... AAR Acid/Alkali

More information

A. INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW

A. INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW Chapter 20: Construction A. INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW This chapter describes a preliminary construction and phasing plan for the proposed project, presents a description of associated construction activities

More information

Technical Guidance Document for Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP)

Technical Guidance Document for Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) Technical Guidance Document for Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) EAD-EQ-PCE-TG-06 Signature on Original Environment Quality Sector * Corporate Management Representative Secretary General

More information

Base Metal and Iron Ore Mining

Base Metal and Iron Ore Mining Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Environmental Guidelines for Base Metal and Iron Ore Mining Industry Description and Practices This document addresses the mining of base metal ores (copper, lead

More information

18 Cumulative Impacts and Interaction of Effects

18 Cumulative Impacts and Interaction of Effects 18 Cumulative Impacts and Interaction of Effects 18.1 Introduction This chapter addresses the cumulative impacts and main interactions between different aspects of the environment likely to be significantly

More information

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Pottersburg Creek Slope Stability Study South of Hamilton Road, Schedule B

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Pottersburg Creek Slope Stability Study South of Hamilton Road, Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Pottersburg Creek Slope Stability Study South of Hamilton Road, Schedule B February 13, 2013 Municipal Class EA Process We are here Purpose and Objective of

More information

CMPDI. 4.6 Mine Closure Plan

CMPDI. 4.6 Mine Closure Plan 4.6 Mine Closure Plan Post-mining Land Use Planning The mine closure planning with regard to for Lekhapani OCP will broadly involve the following aspects: 1. Technical Aspects 2 Environmental Aspects 2.

More information

Building Permit Applications for new home construction will not be accepted unless the following documentation is included at the time of submission:

Building Permit Applications for new home construction will not be accepted unless the following documentation is included at the time of submission: Building Permit Applications for new home construction will not be accepted unless the following documentation is included at the time of submission: Copy of Alberta Government s New Home Registration

More information

6 Risk assessment methodology

6 Risk assessment methodology Risk assessment methodology 6 Risk assessment methodology 6.1 Introduction INPEX has committed to a systematic risk assessment process as a means of achieving best practice in environmental management

More information

Louisette Lanteigne 700 Star Flower Avenue Waterloo, Ontario, N2V 2L2. Dear Ms. Lanteigne: Waterloo North Water Supply EA Part II Order Request

Louisette Lanteigne 700 Star Flower Avenue Waterloo, Ontario, N2V 2L2. Dear Ms. Lanteigne: Waterloo North Water Supply EA Part II Order Request March 6, 2012 File #:E03-20/4015-40 Louisette Lanteigne 700 Star Flower Avenue Waterloo, Ontario, N2V 2L2 Dear Ms. Lanteigne: Re: Waterloo North Water Supply EA Part II Order Request I thank you for taking

More information

Information Request 37

Information Request 37 Information Request 37 Information Request 37 37-1 Response to Information Request 37 Response to Information Requests 37a Response to Information Requests 37b 37-3 37-5 Federal Review Panel Information

More information

16.0 Water Quality Management Criteria for Developed Land

16.0 Water Quality Management Criteria for Developed Land October 2003, Revised February 2005 Criteria for Developed Land Page 1 16.1 Introduction 16.0 Water Quality Management Criteria for Developed Land Stormwater quality control is an integral part of any

More information

OPERATION PHASE: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

OPERATION PHASE: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME OPERA PHASE: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGENT PROGRAMME 1. OBJECTIVE The overall goal for the Environmental Programme (O) is to ensure that the operation of the wind energy facility (WEF) does not have unforeseen

More information