Ministry review of the W12A Landfill expansion environmental assessment

Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, subsection 7(1)

This review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. This paragraph and the giving of the notice of completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the W12A Landfill expansion Environmental assessment and takes the comments received by the ministry into consideration.

Summary of our review

Who

City of London (City)

What

The City is proposing to add 13.8 million cubic metres of solid, non-hazardous waste disposal capacity at the W12A Landfill. The preferred alternative is a vertical expansion of the existing landfill area. The City also proposes to extend the service area for the landfill so that it would include:

• City of London
• County of Huron
• County of Perth
• County of Elgin
• County of Lambton
• County of Middlesex

When

The environmental assessment (EA) was submitted on February 4, 2022.

Where

3502 Manning Drive
London, Ontario

Why

The W12A Landfill is approaching its approved capacity of 12.5 million cubic metres. The proposed additional capacity would extend the life of the landfill to 2048. The proposed service area expansion would provide waste capacity to the region.

Conclusions

The EA was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of reference and contains information necessary to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking. The EA demonstrates that the City will be able to meet its primary objective of providing a long-term solution for residual waste disposal set out in its Terms of reference.

The ministry is proposing conditions be imposed, if approved, to ensure that the undertaking is carried out in accordance with the EA. Indigenous communities, the public, agencies and interested stakeholders with an interest in the undertaking would continue to be engaged.

1. Environmental assessment process

The Environmental assessment Act (EAA) sets out a proponent-driven planning process designed to incorporate consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of a proposed undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the EAA sets out the general requirements for the preparation of an Environmental assessment (EA), as well as the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ (MECP/ministry) evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, the requirements of the EAA must be met before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents are required to address the potential effects of the preferred undertaking on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. The EA helps decision-makers to determine, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how the potential environmental effects can be managed.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with Indigenous communities, government agencies, and the public to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. If the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor the implementation of the undertaking to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and conditions of the EA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

Completing the EA process involves two separate steps – the Terms of reference (ToR) and the EA. The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a ToR to the MECP for review and decision by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (Minister). The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

The ToR was prepared pursuant to sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), which require the proponent to set out in detail the requirements for the preparation of the EA in the ToR. These requirements may differ from the requirements set out in section 6.1(2) of the EAA, commonly referred to as the ‘generic’ requirements for an EA.

The expansion of the existing landfill is intended to address the City’s determination that the landfill will reach capacity by 2024. The City completed the EA process to allow time for obtaining the required approvals and the implementation of the landfill expansion to be available to receive waste prior to the current remaining disposal capacity being consumed.

By proceeding pursuant to sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3), the proponent was able to focus the assessment in the EA on:

• providing a process to identify and assess alternative designs and alternative methods for the expansion of the existing landfill
• assess potential environmental effects and benefits of the alternatives

The City undertook a W12A Landfill Area Plan in 2005 to study Alternatives to for the residual waste generated by the City and the potential development of an integrated waste management centre at both the landfill site itself and the adjoining land areas. These alternatives to the undertaking, such as the do nothing alternative, exporting waste, landfill expansion or a new landfill site were further assessed in the ToR and evaluated by the City to focus the “Alternatives To” within the EA.

The City prepared the ToR for the proposed expansion of the W12A Landfill and submitted it to the Minister on October 12, 2018. An amended ToR, dated February 7, 2019, was submitted to the ministry and approved by the Minister on July 30, 2019. The amended ToR provided additional clarity that the study areas identified in the Terms of reference are preliminary and included a commitment that these would be further refined during the preparation of the EA. As noted in the approved amended ToR, the City has committed to preparing and submitting an EA to the ministry for review and approval in accordance with the approved amended ToR as required by subsection 6.1(1) of the EAA, and in accordance with the requirements of subsection 6.1(3) of the EAA.

The approved amended ToR established the framework for the preparation of the EA, including:

• describing the purpose and rationale for the undertaking, which was to provide additional waste disposal capacity over a 25-year period and expand the service area to include nearby municipalities
• identifying and evaluating potential environmental effects (both positive and negative)
• proposing mitigation measures and a consultation plan for obtaining input from the public, government agencies and Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA

1.2 Environmental assessment

After receiving the Minister’s approval on the ToR, the City proceeded to carry out the EA, which is to be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA.  After completing the EA, including consultation, the EA was submitted to the ministry for review and a decision by the Minister which is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

A draft EA was made available to the public, Indigenous communities and agency review between April 20, 2021, and May 21, 2021.

On February 4, 2022, the City submitted the W12A Landfill Expansion Environmental assessment to the ministry for review and a decision on the proposed undertaking. The EA was available for review and comment to the public, Government Review Team (GRT) and Indigenous communities until March 25, 2022. Indigenous communities, the public, and agencies and interested stakeholders had an opportunity to review the EA and submit comments to the ministry during the comment period. The GRT, comprised of provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to verify that the information and conclusions in the EA were accurate based on the mandates of each respective agency.

All comments sent to the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made on an application.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the Ministry Review (Review). The Review sets out the ministry’s evaluation of the EA, including whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved amended ToR, meets the requirements of the EAA, and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to decide whether to approve the proposed undertaking.

The Review outlines whether the information in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of public, agency and Indigenous community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister considers the Review when deciding on the application. The Minister’s decision on approval of the undertaking described in the EA will be made after the end of the five-week Review comment period.

The Review provides an opportunity for the GRT, public and Indigenous communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking, or the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider any requests for a hearing and determine in their sole discretion taking into account subsection 9.3(2) if a hearing is necessary.

A Notice of Completion of the Review was issued indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period. Copies of the Review have also been distributed electronically to the GRT and potentially affected or interested Indigenous communities. Members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period will have received electronic copies of the review.

2. The proposed undertaking

2.1 Background

The W12A Landfill is located at 3502 Manning Road in London, Ontario (see figure 1). The landfill is situated on 142 hectares (ha) of City owned land with a 107 ha fill area. The current approved waste disposal capacity is 12.5 million cubic metres (m³) with a maximum annual fill rate of 650,000 tonnes. The landfill currently accepts residential, commercial and industrial (IC&I) solid non-hazardous waste and municipal hazardous or special waste. The municipal hazardous or special waste is collected at the W12A Landfill and then sent to different facilities for recycling, reuse or disposal.

The landfill has been operating since 1977 and has been accepting non-hazardous waste generated within the boundaries of the City of London. The City’s W12A Landfill operates under Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) A042102. Since 1976, the ECA has been re-issued/amended 16 times to permit changes to the operation of the landfill (for example, approval of household special waste facility). In 1999, the City received approval to establish a hazardous or special waste depot at the landfill to accept municipal hazardous or special waste from residents and small quantity generators within the boundaries of the City of London and the County of Middlesex for transfer to appropriate recycling/processing facilities.

In 2015, the City completed an Environmental Screening (Ontario Regulation 101/07) to expand the service area of the site to include the Lake Huron Water Treatment Plant (water treatment plant residuals), Elgin Area Water Treatment Plan (water treatment plant residuals), TRY Recycling’s Clark Road Facility (Construction, renovation and demolition), Thames Centre (municipal non-hazardous waste), and Elgin County (Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste).

The City submitted its Environmental Screening Report to the ministry as required under Ontario Regulation 101/07, and the ECA was amended in May 2016.

Purpose

The City proposes to increase the disposal capacity of the landfill by 13.8 million m³ for solid non-hazardous waste for an additional 25 years of capacity (from 2024 to 2048). The City also proposes to expand the landfill’s service area to include the City of London, County of Huron, County of Perth, County of Elgin, County of Lambton, and County of Middlesex to assist with their future residual waste management needs.

2.2 Study areas

The EA primarily used three study areas to identify and assess potential impacts to the environment:

• the site study area, encompassing the existing W12A Landfill Site and adjacent area of land within which landfill expansion may occur
• the site vicinity study area, containing the lands in the area immediately adjacent to the site study area that have the potential to be directly or indirectly affected by the landfill expansion and activities within the site study area
• the wider study area, which is intended to capture lands generally beyond the site vicinity study area and is considered a regional scale

2.3 Local environment

The lands surrounding the W12A Landfill within the site vicinity study area are comprised of a mix of:

• agricultural land
• a livestock operation
• existing businesses (an aggregate gravel pit and a cemetery)
• 10 rural residences

The City owns a majority of the remaining parcels of land that surround the landfill. The site study area contains the existing landfill, stormwater management ponds and ancillary landfill operations and diversion facilities and the potential expansion areas.

The existing fill area of the W12A Landfill is 107 ha of the 142 ha property. The height of the landfill above ground surface ranges from about 9 to 12 metres (m), with peak elevation approximately 17 metres above the ground surface. The landfill is underlain by a deposit of low permeability clay till that provides a natural barrier to downward groundwater and landfill leachate movement.

The W12A Landfill is situated on the boundary between two large subwatershed areas with the majority of the landfill area within the Dodd Creek watershed and a small northerly portion within the Dingman Creek watershed. Dingman Creek is a tributary of the Thames River watershed and Dodd Creek is part of the Kettle Creek watershed. There are a total of 14 hydraulic structures (tile drains and culverts) that receive drainage from the W12A Landfill property and adjacent lands and convey this runoff to off site watercourses.

Stormwater management (SWM) on the W12A Landfill is provided by four SWM ponds - Pond 1, Pond 2/3, Pond 4, and Pond 5. The SWM ponds are used to provide quality control for runoff from drainage areas located within the landfill footprint. The landfill’s SWM ponds provide an outlet from the landfill via hydraulic structures crossing beneath the adjacent roadways to off-site watercourses. Pond 1 discharges into the Dingman Creek subwatershed, and Ponds 2/3, 4 and 5 discharge southwards into the Dodd Creek subwatershed.

2.4 Description of the proposed undertaking

The current approved rate of fill at the landfill is 650,000 tonnes per year. The design for the proposed landfill expansion will provide an additional 13.8 million m³ of capacity, which takes into account existing and anticipated diversion activities associated with the site, which are described in section 4 of this Review. To meet anticipated waste disposal needs over a 25-year planning period, the existing service area of the City, the Municipality of Thames Centre with two water treatment plants and a recycling facility, is proposed to be expanded to a regional service area containing Elgin, Middlesex, Huron, Lambton and Perth Counties.

Proposed expansion

The proposed expansion would be a vertical expansion over the existing 107 ha landfill footprint (see figure 2). The peak elevation of the expansion will be approximately 43 m above the existing ground surface including 0.75 m for final soil cover. The design provides 4:1 side slopes upward from the existing side slopes, with approximately 60% of the waste footprint area at a gradual 5% top slope.

Anticipated waste disposal needs

Over the past 10 years, the site typically received between 230,000 and 320,000 tonnes of waste per year. The City is planning to implement its Resource Recovery Strategy by October 2023 to achieve a 60% residential waste diversion. By using this strategy, it is projected that the landfill’s rate of fill will be 9,400,000 tonnes of residual waste from the existing service area over the 25-year expansion planning period.

In addition, the City is proposing to assist neighbouring municipalities with their future residual waste management needs by increasing the service area for the expanded landfill. Based on information about the life remaining in the neighbouring municipalities’ existing landfills, proposed expansions and various waste diversion scenarios, it is projected that an additional 500,000 tonnes of residual waste in the neighbouring municipalities could require disposal over the 25-year expansion planning period.

As such, the City has proposed that the W12A Landfill expansion be designed to dispose of 9,900,000 tonnes of waste between 2024 and 2048, which corresponds to 13,800,000 m³ of additional airspace. It is also proposed that the current annual maximum rate of fill be reduced from 650,000 to 500,000 tonnes per year.

Existing landfill site design

The existing W12A Landfill site is divided into two phases.

Phase 1 was filled during the first 25 years of operation with approximately 5 million tonnes of waste deposited in the first 6 cells. The Phase 1 cells cover 59.3 ha, occupy the eastern portion of the landfill, and include a perimeter leachate collection system. Landfilling in the Phase 1 area is complete.

Phase 2 of the landfill covers 47.7 ha and has been approved for 5.5 million tonnes of waste. The Phase 2 area is divided into eight cells and landfilling is still ongoing on this portion of the site. The remaining capacity in the Phase 2 cells is approximately 2.5 million cubic metres and the site is expected to reach its approved total capacity in 2024. The Phase 2 cell area includes a full underdrain leachate collection system, landfill gas collection system and stormwater management ponds. The leachate collected from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 is currently pumped off site through the sanitary sewer system to the City owned Greenway Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), and treated effluent is discharged to the Thames River.

Impacts of proposed expansion to site

Approval of the proposed W12A Landfill expansion would result in the placement of additional waste vertically across both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 cells. The expansion over the Phase 2 cells would rely on the existing leachate collection system for this area. For the vertical expansion above the Phase 1 area, the proponent proposes to replace the existing leachate collection system with a new perimeter leachate collection system having better drainage performance with granular finger drains around the north, east and south sides. In addition, a landfill gas collection system is proposed, which will capture gas on site through a series of vertical extraction wells and several horizontal collection pipes which would be added as waste is placed. The collected gas would then be flared at the existing on-site flare.

The W12A Landfill expansion would rely on the four existing SWM ponds, which would be upgraded and modified to manage and control the release of surface water runoff from the landfill. Should the SWM pond require an ECA approval under the Ontario Water Resources Act, a SWM plan and report will be prepared during the detail design phase of the preferred alternative and will be submitted to the MECP for review and approval as part of the application to amend the ECA.

The landfill expansion would include a progressive upgrade or replacement of many of the existing ancillary facilities at the site over the 25-year planning period. In addition, the City has proposed on a vacant southeast corner area of the property the construction of a new scale house (and scale), household special waste depot, and a drop off for large items (including waste, recyclable, and brush).

Impacts to site access

The W12A Landfill expansion would not involve any changes or modifications to existing site accesses or entrances or haul routes for the site. The existing routes used by waste collection trucks would remain the same as the traffic impact analysis completed indicated a minimal increase in traffic volume as a result of the expansion. The haul routes associated with the landfill consist of Manning Drive between Wellington Road South and Highway 401 and Wellington Road South between Dingman Drive and Manning Drive, and Wonderland Road South between Decker Drive and Manning Drive.

Ongoing waste diversion programs

The City is currently achieving a residential waste diversion rate of 45%, with a target of 60% by October 2023. To help achieve this target, the City runs a number of programs including the collection of electronics, tires, scrap metal, organics and blue box materials. The City has also developed a long-term Resource Recovery Strategy which involves a plan to maximize waste reduction, reuse, recycling and resource recovery.

Figure 1: Study area

Figures 2 to 4: Proposed landfill expansion alternatives

3. Results of the Ministry Review

The Review provides an analysis of the EA. It is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the evaluation process used to assess the alternatives, please refer to the EA. The EA and supporting documentation outline the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent selected the preferred undertaking.

The purpose of the Ministry Review is to determine whether:

• The EA has met the requirements of the ToR and the EAA
• There are any outstanding issues with the EA
• The proposed undertaking has technical merit

Must Haves in the EA:

• The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR.
• The EA must include all the basic EAA information requirements.
• EA demonstrates where all the additional commitments in the ToR were met, including studies and the consultation process.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the EA was prepared in accordance with the ToR. The ministry has concluded that the EA followed the framework in the approved amended ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA and any commitments made in the approved amended ToR were met by the proponent.

Appendix A summarizes this analysis.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is consultation with Indigenous communities, the public and agencies during the preparation of the EA. The proponent is responsible for meetings its consultation requirements prior to submitting the EA to the ministry and the consultation must be carried out in accordance with the consultation plan in the approved amended ToR.

The City’s consultation program included:

• establishing a project contact list
• meetings with agency and municipal stakeholders, and Indigenous communities
• hosting two public open houses
• circulating notices via local newspapers and mail outs
• maintaining a project website with EA documentation
• publishing the draft EA for review from April 22, 2021 to May 21, 2021

The City documented its consultation activities adequately in the EA and Record of Consultation. Section 4.0 of the EA provides an overview of the consultation activities, with the complete consultation documented in the Consultation Log Volume V of the EA.

Following submission of the EA to the ministry, the ministry undertook consultation in accordance with the EAA from February 4, 2022 to March 25, 2022. The GRT, public and Indigenous communities had an opportunity to review the EA and submit any concerns regarding the EA and the proposed undertaking. Comments received by the ministry during the comment period were forwarded to the City for a response. A summary of the comments received along with the City’s response is in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix B to this Review.

Government review team

Consultation with the GRT occurred throughout the EA process, including:

• pre-submission discussions
• technical meetings with ministry staff and key members of the GRT
• an opportunity to review the draft EA

Many of the comments provided on the draft EA were addressed in the final EA submitted to the ministry. Comments were provided throughout the EA process, including on the EA work plans and draft EA, by:

• the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, now Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM)
• the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (MAFRA)
• the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)
• Middlesex-London Health Unit (MLHU)
• the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP)
• Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA)
• Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA)

Section 4.1 of the EA provides an overview of agency consultation activities. Original GRT correspondence and the City’s responses can be found in Volume V, Appendix I.02 of the EAs Record of Consultation.

Following the formal submission of the EA to the ministry, GRT members were provided with a copy for review. Refer to section 3.3. of this Review or Table 1 of Appendix B regarding these comments.

Public Consultation

The proponent used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public including: public notices, two public information centres, website postings and direct community engagement through meetings, phone calls and emails. Public information centres were held on February 26 and 27, 2020, and November 18 and 19, 2020. A summary of consultation with public stakeholders during the preparation of the EA is included in Section 4.7 of the EA.

The Notice of Commencement for the EA was issued on September 19, 2020. The City made the draft EA and its supporting documents available on the City’s website for comment. Public comments and correspondence can be found in Volume V, Appendix I.02 of the EAs Record of Consultation.

The Notice of Submission of the final EA was issued on February 4, 2022, and circulated to the project contact list as well as posted on the City’s website. All public comments received by the ministry were forwarded to the City for a response. Comments and response are included in Table 2 of Appendix B and are summarized in section 3.3 of this Review.

Indigenous Community Consultation

In addition to the EAA requirement for interested persons to be consulted, proponents are required to consult with Indigenous communities who have credibly asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights that may be negatively impacted by the proposed undertaking.

The proponent also consulted with Indigenous communities during the EA process. The following Indigenous communities were identified for consultation purposes:

• Aamjiwnaang First Nation
• Bkejwanong (Walpole Island) First Nation
• Caldwell First Nation
• Chippewas of the Thames First Nation
• Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point
• Moravian of the Thames
• Munsee-Delaware Nation
• Oneida Nation of the Thames

The above list was developed in consultation with the ministry, the Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. At the ToR stage, the MECP provided the City with a list of Indigenous communities to be consulted. The MECP formally delegated the procedural aspects of consultation to the City in February 2017.

Formal study notices were circulated to the identified Indigenous communities. Correspondence invited the communities to participate during the ToR phase of the EA and each round of EA consultation. In addition to the formal study notices, interested Indigenous communities were given studies to review and provide comment.

Throughout the preparation of the EA, the Indigenous communities were kept informed of the progress of the EA and once complete received a copy of the draft EA to review and provide comments. The following is a summary of the consultation with Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA.

The City worked with the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation (COTTFN) during its archaeology field work in 2019 and a member of this Indigenous community was employed to be present and assist activities. The City also held meetings in 2019 with COTTFN, the Oneida Nation of the Thames (Oneida) and the Aamjiwnaang First Nation (AFN). These meetings discussed the City worked with the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, First Nation involvement in the project and the Public and Community Liaison Committees. At the meeting with AFN, the City provided the community with information on the landfill’s hydrogeology and discussed AFN's request for a peer review of the landfill’s hydrogeology information and sharing of the results with the surrounding First Nation communities.

The City held a workshop with AFN, COTTFN, Munsee-Delaware First Nation, and Oneida to discuss the peer review of the Groundwater Work Plan. The purpose of the meeting was to address concerns identified in the peer review related to thickness and fractures in the till/ clay soils and potential for leachate movement and recommendations for further studies and monitoring. Feedback from this workshop resulted in changes to the Groundwater Work Plan. A second virtual workshop was held with AFN, COTTFN and Munsee-Delaware First Nation to present information and receive feedback on the preferred alternative and provide an update on groundwater, biology and archaeological field studies.

The City met with COTTFN on June 28, 2021, to discuss and provide an overview of the EA. COTTFN provided comments on the draft EA on July 2, 2021, which related to:

• accessibility and accommodation expectations
• consideration of planning policies and goals in relation to population growth
• concerns related to air quality
• climate change
• the production of Green House Gases (GHG) and management of Landfill Gas (LFG)
• waste diversion
• surface water impacts to the Thames River from the Greenway WWTP
• socio-cultural sensitivities
• geotechnical slope stability
• changes in land use
• future cultural heritage and archaeological assessments

The City met with COTTFN on November 4, 2021, to discuss the comments provided. The City responded by letter dated November 18, 2021, with commitments related to on-going consultation, waste management and climate change.

Consultation continued between the City and the community throughout the development of the EA.  During the comment period following the submission of the EA to the ministry, the ministry received comments from COTTFN and Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation (CKSPFN). The comments from the Indigenous communities’ and the City’s response are included in Table 3 of Appendix B and are summarized in section 3.3 of this Review.

The consultation carried out by the City with Indigenous communities is summarized in the EA in Section 4.6.7 and documented in Volume V, Appendix I.02 of the Record of Consultation.

The City has committed to continuing engagement with Indigenous communities with respect to the proposed undertaking should the EA be approved.

Ministry conclusions on the Consultation Program

Based on the ministry’s review of the EA and consultation related documentation, the ministry is satisfied that the City met the requirements of the EAA with respect to consultation and that the consultation undertaken was consistent with the ministry’s Codes of Practice and best practices.

3.2 Environmental assessment process

Environmental assessment (EA) is a planning process that requires a proponent to identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the potential environmental effects of alternatives against criteria and select a preferred alternative based on the results of the evaluation.

The City followed a logical and transparent decision-making process to select the preferred method for expanding the W12A Landfill to be able to continue providing waste disposal services at the landfill from 2024 to 2048. Below is a summary of the EA process followed, including the study areas, and the methodology for assessing alternatives and environmental effects.

Please refer to Appendix A of this Review for the ministry’s analysis of how the EA has met the requirements of the EAA and has been prepared in accordance with the approved amended ToR.

3.2.1 Focused EA

The City prepared its EA in accordance with sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EAA, which resulted in an EA that focused on the consideration of alternative methods for increasing waste disposal capacity at the W12A Landfill. The approved amended ToR supported the City’s proposed limiting of the alternatives to be considered in the EA through an analysis of the City’s available alternatives for additional waste disposal capacity that would allow the City to provide integrated waste disposal services over the 25-year planning period.

The approved amended ToR references the City’s 2008, W12A Landfill Area Plan Study (the W12A Study), which looked at the evolution of the W12A Landfill facility toward an integrated waste management centre. This study outlined seven alternatives developed by the City, which were evaluated and the public consulted on. The City proposed in the approved amended ToR to use the conclusions of W12A Landfill Area Plan as the basis for focusing its approved amended ToR.

The City provided a detailed analysis of the W12A Study’s look at ‘alternatives to’ in its approved amended ToR. The various options were assessed in the W12A Study based on natural environment, social/cultural, technical and economic criteria. The options considered in the W12A Study included:

• continued use of the landfill until its approved capacity is reached and development of a new greenfield landfill within the City’s municipal boundaries
• expansion of the W12A Landfill
• development of an Integrated Resource Recovery Centre and expansion of the W12A Landfill
• development of an Industrial Eco-park and expansion of the W12A Landfill
• early closure of the W12A Landfill and development of a new greenfield site within the City’s municipal boundaries
• continued use of the existing landfill until its approved capacity is reached and establishment of a waste transfer station to export waste outside of the City for disposal
• accelerate waste diversion to maximize capacity at W12A Landfill and expand the W12A Landfill

The City compared the above ‘alternatives to’, identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each and determined that developing an integrated resource recovery centre and expanding the W12A Landfill was the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative was compared to the 'do nothing' alternative, which would see the W12A Landfill reach its approved capacity and the City not pursue any other waste management solution for the City. The preferred ‘alternative to’ was found to be more advantageous than the 'do nothing' alternative. As such, the proponent proposed in the approved amended ToR that the only ‘alternative to’ that would be considered in the EA would be expansion of the W12A Landfill.

The proponent committed in the approved amended ToR to identifying different “alternative methods” for expanding the landfill within the existing W12A Landfill property and a portion of the Special Policy Area that would be considered in the EA. The Special Policy Area is an area identified in the City’s Official Plan that covers 288 ha and includes the existing W12A Landfill and the Integrated Resource Recovery Centre. The landfill expansion alternatives consisted of variations and combinations of landfill height, landfill area and configuration. The proponent committed in its approved amended ToR to a comparative evaluation of ‘alternative methods’ in the EA to determine the potential effects of each ‘alternative method’ on each environmental component.

The approved amended ToR focused on a preferred alternative to the undertaking that the City has evaluated using the information presented in the W12A Landfill Area Plan Study.

The ministry is satisfied that the assessment and consultation process undertaken by the City during the preparation of the ToR allowed for the identification of a reasonable range of alternative methods to be assessed in the EA. It also committed to incorporating public, Indigenous and government agency input into the assessment of the alternative methods.

3.2.2 Description of the environment in the study areas

Section 5.0 (Description of the Environment Potentially Affected) of the EA provides a description of the environmental conditions in the site study area, site vicinity study area and wider study areas as previously described (see figure 1), establishing a baseline for comparison between the alternative methods. The environmental components described in the EA are:

• environment – air quality, noise, hydrogeology, surface water and aquatic and terrestrial biology
• socio-economic – socio-economic, land use and cultural
• technical – financial and built aspects of the environment

The ministry is satisfied that a broad definition of the environment was used, and that the EA adequately describes the existing environmental conditions in the study areas.

3.2.3 Assessment of alternative methods

The City considered various W12A Landfill Expansion alternatives which considered site specific factors and included site design and system requirements, existing leachate collection, landfill gas management, stormwater management, and associated mitigation measures. Based on these factors alternative methods for the proposed expansion of the W12A Landfill were described in Section 6.0 (Description of the Alternative Methods of Landfill Expansion) of the EA. In accordance with the approved ToR, the only alternative methods carried over to the EA were vertical expansion of the disposal area above the existing waste footprint and lateral expansion of the disposal area to the north and/or east within the Site Study Area.

The City developed evaluation criteria to identify and assess the potential impacts of the proposed landfill expansion alternatives on the natural (i.e., air quality, noise, and biology) and socio-economic environment (i.e., land use, archaeology and cultural heritage, and local economy), and on technical components (i.e., design and operations, operation costs, and traffic operations). The City evaluated the net effects from each alternative method, then compared and ranked each method to determine the preferred alternative. The options for expanding the landfill to provide additional waste disposal capacity were:

• Alternative 1 – vertical expansion over the existing footprint (see figure 2)
• Alternative 2 – horizontal expansion to the north and vertical expansion over part of the existing footprint (see Figure 3)
• Alternative 3 – horizontal expansion to the east and vertical expansion over part of the existing footprint (see Figure 4)

The do nothing alternative was also included as a benchmark for comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the various alternatives. As a result, the ministry gained an understanding of the impacts of proceeding with the landfill expansion verses a do nothing scenario.

3.2.4 Assessment of environmental effects

The City describes the potential effects, mitigation measures and residual (net) effects of the preferred alternative in Section 9.0 (Impact Assessment and Net Effects) of the EA. The City developed impact assessment criteria which were used to identify the net effects resulting after the application of mitigation measures. Environmental components that were considered included:

• atmosphere
• geology and hydrogeology
• surface water
• biology (natural heritage)
• land use
• agriculture
• archaeology
• built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes
• socio economic
• visual
• transportation
• design and operations

The natural heritage assessment (biology) examined the potential effects of the undertaking on: endangered or threatened species habitat; terrestrial ecosystems (wildlife and wildlife habitat); as well as effects on aquatic ecosystems (fish and fish habitat). The landfill expansion is predicted to have minimal impacts on vegetation, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, including species at risk.

An assessment of the landfill expansion on air quality was completed and the potential impacts were determined to be minimal and not significant. The City also assessed the landfill expansion on socio-economic factors (such as nuisance effects such as dust, vermin, visual appearance, noise, litter, and odour) and identified mitigation measures that would be implemented where technically and economically feasible to prevent or reduce the adverse environmental effects to these factors.

The City completed archaeological assessments to identify known archaeological resources within the study area. A Stage 1 study determined that portions of the study area had archaeological potential and would require a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment to identify additional archaeological sites. A Stage 2 assessment resulted in the identification of seven archaeological locations and an additional six locations with artifacts in another part of the study area. Following identification of the preferred alternative, one location was considered to have cultural heritage value and recommended to be subject to a Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment. The Stage 3 assessment identified the one site with archaeological potential (White Oak 1 site) located on the north side of the western portion of the existing landfill footprint which will require Stage 4 mitigation. The City will employ a 10 metre buffer around the White Oak 1 site to avoid disruption during construction, operation and closure of the preferred alternative. The Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) reviewed the results of the Stage 3 assessment and has issued a letter of compliance. In addition, no built heritage resources of value or interest were identified within the study area that could be impacted by the W12A Landfill expansion.

Transportation impacts were considered through the EA and it was determined that the preferred alternative for landfill expansion will not significantly change the traffic impacts from landfill operations as this preferred alternative will use the same waste haul routes as the existing facility.

With regard to impacts to the local economic environment, the expansion is not expected to create any new jobs during operation as the existing landfill workforce will be sufficient. New, temporary jobs are expected during construction. Local businesses are not anticipated to be negatively or positively affected as a result of the preferred alternative. In terms of the local economy, no changes to employment or use of local vendors is anticipated.

Source water protection

The City’s consideration of source water protection is described in section 5.3.1 of the EA. The preferred alternative is located in the Thames-Sydenham and Region (the Upper Thames River Source Protection Area) and the Lake Erie Region Drinking Water Source Protection Region (Kettle Creek Source Protection Area). The primary source of drinking water for the City is surface water from Lake Huron and Lake Erie, with a backup groundwater well located in the northeast and west parts of the City. All of these water sources are distant from the W12A Landfill, with the closest one being 10 km east of the landfill. The ministry’s Source Protection Programs Branch is satisfied with the information provided in the EA as there are no source water protection areas identified on or in the area of the preferred alternative.

Climate change impacts

The ministry’s 2017 guideline regarding consideration of climate change in the preparation of an EA (updated in 2019) was used as a guide for incorporating measures in the design of the landfill expansion that reduce both the potential impact of climate change on the landfill (i.e., climate change adaptation) and its potential impact on climate change (i.e., climate change mitigation) in the EA.

The City expects that the planned 25-year operational period of the landfill expansion will be too short for the landfill to be significantly affected by impacts from climate change. During the post-closure period, longer term changes in precipitation and temperature could affect the growth of the vegetative cover causing changes to surface water runoff and the performance of the SWM system. The proponent designed the SWM ponds for conditions during a 1:250-year storm and regional storm events. The potential impacts on the landfill from climate change with respect to precipitation will be taken into account in the final design of leachate collection infrastructure and temporary leachate on-site storage. The City can also make adjustments to landfill operations in future to mitigate potential effects from temperature and winds associated with climate change.

The expansion area will be located over the existing footprint, thus there will be no clearing of forested areas, and no associated adverse effects related to GHG sequestration and climate change. GHGs generated from the landfill expansion will peak in 2048 and then decline over time and will be controlled by an active landfill gas collection and flaring system. The efficiency of the collection system is expected to significantly improve by 2048 compared to 2020 and will result in decreases in annual GHG emissions.

The City is planning the landfill expansion in a manner that considers future changes in climate and the impacts a changing climate could have on the preferred alternative. The net effects of GHG generation are considered in the EA, as well as the size/design of stormwater management facilities to address potential flooding events. The preferred alternative is not expected to have any significant impacts on the environment due to climate change considerations.

Cumulative effects

The Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental assessments in Ontario (2014) encourages proponents to include information about the potential cumulative effects of the preferred alternative in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities. The City outlined steps for determining cumulative effects in the approved amended ToR, and the EA determined that the effects from the landfill expansion would not overlap with those from other projects or activities in terms of hydrogeology, surface water, agriculture, or visual impacts. With respect to air (air emissions, including GHGs, odour, and noise), natural environment, socio-economic and land use, and transportation, the proponent would implement operating procedures, monitoring programs and mitigation measures to ensure compliance with provincial requirements. The City considers it unlikely that new sensitive land uses would be built in close proximity to the landfill as the City’s Official Plan policies restrict uses around the landfill.

3.2.5 Monitoring and commitments

Section 12.0 of the EA describes the environmental effects monitoring which may be used to ascertain the effectiveness of mitigation measures, and contingency measures to address unexpected occurrences. Monitoring of the atmosphere, geology and hydrogeology, surface water, biology, leachate quality and landfill gas is proposed. Commitments related to the construction, operation, closure and post-closure of the landfill are listed in Table 13.1: Summary of Commitments of the EA.

3.2.6 Ministry conclusions on the EA process

Overall, the ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s decision-making process and that the process is consistent with the requirements of the EAA and is in accordance with the approved amended ToR. The EA examines the rationale for expanding the landfill, provides a description of the potentially affected environment using the EAAs broad definition of the environment, and considers alternative methods for the landfill’s site development. The EA identifies the potential effects of the alternatives along with mitigation measures and assesses them based on their relative advantages and disadvantages. Net effects of the preferred alternative are identified in the EA and monitoring measures are proposed to manage environmental effects.

3.3 Comments on the undertaking

3.3.1 Key issues

Issues and concerns from the GRT, Indigenous communities, and members of the public regarding the proposed undertaking were received by the ministry during the review and comment period that followed the submission of the EA. The City provided responses to all comments received during the EA submission comment period. All comments received, along with responses provided by the City, are included in Tables 1, 2, and 3 in Appendix B of this Review. This section summarizes the key issues that were raised.

Government review team comments

The MECP received comments from the following ministries and municipal stakeholders during the seven-week EA comment period:

• Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA)
• Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, now Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM)
• Middlesex-London Health Unit (MLHU)
• Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

Kettle Creek Conservation Authority

The KCCA reviewed the EA and was satisfied that the questions and comments they provided on the draft EA have been sufficiently addressed in the final EA and documented in the summary table included in the Volume V, Appendix I.03 of the EAs Record of Consultation.

Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM)

The MCM reviewed the cultural heritage evaluation and archaeological assessment and are satisfied that the comments they provided on the draft EA were addressed in the final EA. MCM was also satisfied that archaeological/cultural heritage resources will be appropriately considered before the landfill expansion can proceed and with the City’s commitment to provide them with notification should archaeological resources be impacted.

Middlesex-London Health Unit (MLHU)

The MLHU commented that the City’s waste management strategy addresses the need for waste diversion and reduction as “upstream strategies” that enable a healthy environment and reduce associated health impacts. The MLHU remarked that landfills have the potential for creating public health, environmental and socio-economic concerns if mitigation measures are not implemented, and that monitoring and contingency plans are important. The MLHU is satisfied that the City has considered public health impacts and mitigation strategies, including potential impacts from climate change, in the EA.

Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

The MTO reviewed the EA and commented that signals may be needed to address potential traffic issues near the landfill. The proponent responded that a traffic signal is warranted at the eastbound ramp terminal / Manning Drive, south ramp terminals, but not at the westbound ramp terminal.

The MTO commented that the EA mentions the Wonderland/401 ramp terminals would be at or above capacity in 2048 but does not provide any proposed mitigation measures. The City determined that traffic signals could be introduced at the ramp terminals and would ensure all traffic movements operate well below capacity.

The City indicated that if a spill were to occur on MTO property, it is the responsibility of the waste haulers under their license to haul waste materials and was therefore not included in the operations plan for the W12A Landfill.

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)

Key comments from MECP staff pertained to leachate and stormwater management, species at risk, and resource recovery.

Leachate and Stormwater Management

MECP technical reviewers advised that the EA should evaluate the ability of the Greenway WWTP to continue providing leachate storage capacity to prevent overflow. The City responded that it has designed the undertaking to provide temporary storage of leachate at the landfill during large storm events when the Greenway WWTP may be in an overflow situation. Leachate comprises less than 0.5% of the wastewater treated at the WWTP.

The Stormwater Management Report included in the EA indicates there will be changes to the landfill’s drainage areas. The City committed to consulting with the conservation authorities on changes to drainage areas that could potentially impact subwatersheds. The EA was reviewed by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) and KCCA and they indicated that their concerns were satisfied through discussion with the City. The City will continue to consult with both the UTRCA and KCCA during the permitting stage, if approved.

Species at Risk

The MECP recommended that rock and concrete piles be assessed for potential bat habitat. The City responded that it will complete an assessment of suitable rock piles for Eastern Small footed Myotis should they be identified during the design phase. The City acknowledged the updates to the regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and that grassland birds are now regulated under Ontario Regulation 830/21. Further consultation with the MECP will be required to determine the ESA requirements for the preferred alternative.

Resource Recovery

The Resource Recovery Policy Branch advised that the EA should provide supporting information for the City’s assumption that all Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) waste from London will come to the W12A Landfill by 2024, given the availability of disposal options for IC&I waste in southwest Ontario. The City’s response dated August 3, 2022, provided a rationale for the quantity of IC&I waste material included in the waste disposal projections for the 25-year planning period for the expansion. MECP is satisfied with the response.

Public comments

The MECP received five (5) submissions during the EA comment period from local stakeholders including: W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee (W12A PLC), three local residents, and a business. Common key issues and concerns included:

• opposition to increases in landfill size and bio-waste acceptance
• notification to local area residents prior to bio-waste disposal
• odour/ air quality
• dust
• blowing litter
• visual impacts
• property value impacts

The City addressed each concern in the EA.

The W12A PLC commented that it would like a review of the original 1975 agreement governing the landfill which provided more protections and compensatory benefits to local area residents. In response, the City compared the original 1975 agreement to the current EA and found that provincial regulations for landfills establish more stringent operational requirements and environmental compliance performance standards today than in 1975, including:

• similar or better mitigation measures for nuisance impacts
• additional visual screening measures and monitoring programs
• similar waste disposal restrictions
• upgraded landfill design parameters

The City has since developed a Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program to which it provides annual payments. This program provides more benefits for residents than the original agreement. The City has agreed to notify area residents when biosolids will be delivered to the W12A Landfill for disposal.

Three residents who live close to the landfill expressed concerns regarding the landfill expansion. The City responded that, to address these concerns, it intends to incorporate odour reduction measures such as installing horizontal landfill gas collector pipes and flaring landfill gas to destroy odour causing compounds, updating the odour management plan and minimizing the tipping area.

The City will:

• notify residents when bio-waste is disposed at the landfill
• construct new berms to screen the landfill from the adjacent roadways
• will seek feedback on roadside view-mitigation measures from residents
• determine which outside municipalities or businesses can dispose of waste at the W12A Landfill and may require their diversion rate to match or exceed the City’s

The City has approved the implementation of a Green Bin program and is waiting for the delivery of new collection trucks to implement the program to help reach it’s 60% diversion rate.

As noted above, in order to reduce the landfill’s impacts on residents’ property values, the City has a Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program that includes the Property Value Protection Plan, annual payments as part of the Right of First Refusal Program, Community Mitigative Measures Fund, no charge waste disposal, and the Public Liaison Committee.

The W12A Landfill is following the EA and requirements of Ontario Regulation 232/98 (Landfill Standards), so waste is covered on an ongoing basis throughout the day. Windblown debris would be controlled by litter fencing around the active area, and regular inspections and pick up of litter off-site. Final capping is done after an area has reached its final approved contours and would be done during the operational period for each phase of expansion. Groundwater modelling showed that MECP groundwater quality requirements were met for protection of off-site uses of groundwater. The City has a groundwater well monitoring network that serves as an early warning system should leachate migration vary from the expected.

A business owner with development lands to the north, east and west of the W12A Landfill had concerns regarding the expansion. The City responded that the landfill expansion meets MECP standards with respect to air quality (including odour) and nuisance impacts. Provided the property was purchased prior to August 2006, the City has a property value protection plan for residential and agricultural properties within 1 km and 0.5 km respectively of the landfill. The City owns the majority of land (approximately 300 ha) and residential properties within 1 km of the landfill.

Indigenous community comments

During the seven-week comment period on the EA, MECP followed up with the identified Indigenous communities by email and phone on March 15, 2022, and March 23, 2022, to confirm whether they would be providing comments on the final EA. Only CKSPFN and COTTFN provided comments on the final EA. The Munsee-Delaware Nation indicated that they had no comment on the W12A Landfill Expansion.

A summary of the comments received fromCKSPFN and COTTFN during the comment period is provided below.

Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation

CKSPFN provided comments on the final EA related to stormwater and leachate management, climate change, groundwater contaminants, LFG management, cumulative effects, Species at Risk and habitat disturbance, the landfill closure plan, service area and waste management.

The City responded to CKSPFNs request to be informed of changes to the Greenway WWTP by stating that there will be no changes at the plant to accommodate the landfill expansion. The City noted that there was no need to include an assessment of WWTP treatment capacity, as it was accounted for when planning for the WWTP itself.

CKSPFN requested a Condition of Approval on the EA requiring the establishment of a committee (including a First Nation representative) for the duration of the construction, operation and closure of the landfill; opportunities to receive, review and comment on the landfill’s annual reports; and to have the City report annually on the WWTP capacity to accept and store leachate from the landfill. The ministry is considering imposing a Condition of Approval that would require the City to provide Indigenous communities with an opportunity to participate in an operating committee for the landfill. A draft outline of a potential condition is included in section 5.1 of this Review.

The City considered the potential implications of climate change when designing the storage for leachate from the landfill expansion in the EA. Temporary leachate storage would be provided in a below ground storage tank below the landfill area, as such there should not be leakage or discharge to groundwater or surface watercourses. The City employs a groundwater monitoring program to assess the performance of the perimeter leachate collection system.

Climate change was also considered in the EA as it relates to the planning, design, operation, construction, and post-closure phases. The effects of climate change (and increased precipitation) on the design of the stormwater management system have been considered in the EA and will be taken into account in the design of the leachate management infrastructure. CKSPFN requested a condition be imposed requiring the City to assess climate change impacts during the preferred alternative’s construction, operation, and closure phases. The ministry considered the analysis undertaken by the City in the EA and is not proposing a condition be imposed as the ministry is satisfied that the City has already appropriately addressed climate change implications in the EA.

The City provided the CKSPFN with a summary (since 2010) of options for utilization of landfill gas. The City has an opportunity to establish a Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) facility at the landfill site, and will continue to explore this option outside of the EA. The landfill collection and flaring system proposed in the EA should limit the release of GHG from the landfill. The City responded to CKSPFNs comments that GHG levels generated by the landfill will peak in 2049 which indicates that the LFG output will increase over time until landfill closure (since the biodegradation of organic materials increases as the amount of waste disposed increases, and then the gas production declines). The landfill gas generation projections do not account for reductions in the generation of gas as a result of the diversion of organics from disposal being implemented by the City. CKSPFN requested a condition be imposed requiring the City investigate beneficial uses for the landfill gas generated using a screening approach that compares beneficial options to flaring. The ministry is considering proposing a condition that would require the City to re-evaluate the viability of using the landfill gas produced every four years should the EA be approved.

The City did not assess cumulative effects for the proposed undertaking’s service area, since the EA determined that it's effects would not overlap with those from other projects or activities in terms of hydrogeology, surface water, agriculture, or visual impacts. The City will implement operating procedures, monitoring programs and mitigation measures to be compliant with provincial requirements for air, socio-economic and land use, natural environment and transportation effects. It is not known if any waste generators within the proposed expanded service area would pursue waste disposal at the landfill and if they did, it would, at most, make up 5% of the waste disposed of during the 25-year planning period. CKSPFN requested a condition be imposed requiring the City to document the regional benefits of the preferred alternative, including benefits to First Nations, impacts on waste diversion rates outside the City, economic impacts to other governments (including First Nation governments), sub-regional impacts associated with waste management facilities that will see reduced volumes or closure, and sub-regional impacts associated with establishing new waste transfer facilities. The ministry has considered the City’s analysis presented in the EA and is satisfied that the City has demonstrated the need for an increase to the landfill capacity and expansion of the landfill’s service area, therefore a condition is not required should the EA be approved.

CKSPFN requested information regarding the final landfill cover and landfill expansion design. The City responded to this request by providing information in the EA which outlines the type of cover and considerations for the vegetation to be planted on the cover. The City provided information regarding potential impacts during the closure and post-closure period, and these matters are described in the EA. A detailed closure and end use plan is usually required through the conditions in the ECA for a landfill site. The plan is usually required to be submitted to the MECP for review and approval in advance of the site’s capacity being reached. The site’s current ECA contains such a condition.

The proposed vertical expansion would result in the removal of grassland bird habitat, as such, the City has committed to habitat compensation, habitat monitoring and obtaining any necessary MECP authorizations. The habitat would be re-established as fill areas are finally covered. The City has committed to providing the CKSPFN a copy of the habitat compensation monitoring reports; to completing the work in the southeastern corner of the landfill outside the bird breeding window and avoiding the White Oak 1 site during the construction, operation and closure of the landfill expansion. CKSPFN requested a condition be imposed on the approval of the undertaking requiring the City to provide habitat protection/compensation and monitoring plans for impacted SAR and to create plans and report on avoidance of the White Oak 1 site. The ministry is considering imposing a condition that would require the City to provide a copy of habitat compensation monitoring reports to Indigenous communities for review and comment before they are finalized. A draft outline of the proposed condition is included in section 5.1 of this Review.

CKSPFN inquired about sending the community’s waste to the W12 Landfill. The City reached out to CKSPFN during the EA to discuss options for waste removal with the community. Since the CKSPFN are located within the proposed regional service area the community would be eligible to use the landfill if approved and upon further discussion with the City.

Chippewas of the Thames First Nation

COTTFN was the only Indigenous community to provide comments on both the draft and final EA. COTTFNs comments on the final EA related to climate change, consultation, stormwater and leachate management, waste diversion and LFG management.

The City designed the landfill’s stormwater management system for a 1:250-year storm event and the leachate collection systems to accommodate increased leachate generation as a result of climate change. The City also incorporated a 4H:1V landfill side slope design to include a stability safety factor to account for extreme weather events.

COTTFN commented that the City should meet twice a year to discuss landfill operations, programs, and projects. The ministry is considering imposing a condition requiring the City to provide Indigenous communities with the opportunity to participate on an operating committee for the expanded landfill. A draft outline of such a condition is included in section 5.1 of this Review.

The City’s waste diversion initiatives and plan for reaching a residential diversion rate of 60% is documented in the EA. The City is waiting for the delivery of new collection trucks to begin implementation of the program (significant supply chain issues due to the COVID‑19 pandemic have delayed the delivery dates). The City reports waste diversion rates annually to council, municipalities, and the province.

In response to COTTFNs request to assess the use of collected landfill gas, City Council has approved staff investigating the marketplace feasibility of producing RNG. The City has advised that it is working towards developing a RNG facility utilizing captured landfill gas, but a timeline for RNG implementation is not available due to the involvement of other organizations (for example, pipeline company and regulatory agencies) and supply chain issues. The City has attempted landfill gas utilization projects since 2010 and has provided COTTFN with a summary of options. The City will continue to explore this outside of the EA. COTTFN commented that the City should use its Climate Lens Process for landfill gas recovery/ utilization options, to have that work peer reviewed, and discuss the results with COTTFN. The ministry may propose a condition that requires the City to re-evaluate the viability of landfill gas utilization every four years. The ministry is also considering proposing a condition that would require the proponent to include a peer-reviewed report for landfill gas recovery. A draft outline of the proposed condition is included in section 5.1 of this Review.

In correspondence dated September 1, 2022, COTTFN informed the ministry that they had a follow up discussion with the City to discuss the City’s responses their April 1, 2022, concerns. COTTFN suggested the City’s commitments be included as conditions in any approval.

3.3.2 Conclusion

The ministry is of the opinion that the proposed expansion would be designed and operated to comply with the ministry’s standards and that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking would be managed through the commitments made in the EA, through conditions of approval, or through additional work that must be carried out by the City in support of future approval applications, if the EA is approved.

4. Waste diversion

As part of the EA, the City developed an interim wasted management strategy and two long-term waste management strategies:

• The 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan was created by the City in 2018 as an interim step as longer term waste management strategies were implemented. The Action Plan includes development programs and an implementation schedule to increase the residential waste diversion rate to 60%.
• The Resource Recovery Strategy, the purpose of which according to the City, was to maximize waste reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, energy recovery and/or waste conversion in an economically and environmentally responsible manner. The City’s current residential diversion rate is 45%, with a target of 60% by end of 2022. To help achieve its target, the City runs several programs including the collection of electronics, tires, scrap metal, organics and blue boxes. The strategy considers opportunities for advanced resource recovery and increased waste diversion through new technologies and according to the City is scheduled to be completed by October 2023.
• The Residual Waste Disposal Strategy involves the development of a long-term plan to manage residual waste, which will require completion of the W12 Landfill Expansion EA.

5. Summary of the Ministry Review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis of the W12A Landfill Expansion EA.

This Review documents the ministry’s conclusions, including:

• That the EA complies with the requirements of the approved amended ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. The EA provides sufficient information about the undertaking and its potential impacts to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking.
• That the EA includes: an assessment and evaluation of alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, an assessment of the potential environmental effects of the alternative methods and the preferred alternative, an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the preferred alternative and provides a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.
• That appropriate opportunities were provided for the GRT, Indigenous communities and the public to participate and comment during the development of the EA. Concerns raised by the GRT and Indigenous communities have been considered by the proponent in the EA, or a commitment has been made to consider the concerns further through future discussions, commitments and permitting and approval processes.

If the undertaking is approved to proceed, standard conditions of approval are recommended for the implementation of the undertaking including:

• general requirements to comply with the EA and any commitments made
• obtain other approvals and permits under other statutes
• provide documentation for the public record
• monitor compliance with the conditions and report on compliance
• preparate a complaints protocol to respond to all complaints received during construction.

5.1 Proposed conditions of approval

The ministry proposes to include several standard conditions of approval should the undertaking be approved to proceed:

• general requirements to comply with the EA and commitments made
• documentation requirements for the public record
• compliance monitoring provisions for the proponent to carry out and report on
• preparation of a complaints protocol to respond to any complaints received during construction and operation
• preparation of an Indigenous consultation plan
• an expiration date on the EA approval

Below is an outline of potential conditions that may be recommended to the Minister for inclusion in any approval of the undertaking:

• establishment of a landfill operating committee which will include Indigenous community participation
• provision of the City’s habitat compensation reports to interested Indigenous communities for review and comment before they are finalized
• re-evaluation of the viability of landfill gas utilization every four years following approval, requiring the proponent to undertake a peer reviewed report for landfill gas recovery and utilization

This list is not exhaustive and additional or different conditions may be proposed subject to further review and consultation. During the five-week Review comment period and prior to the ministry making a recommendation to the Minister regarding approval of the undertaking, additional conditions may be proposed to ensure that the environment remains protected.

6. What happens now

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Indigenous communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the Review. At this time, anyone can make a written request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing if they feel their environmental concerns have not been considered.

Following the Review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister regarding approval of the undertaking. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the requirements set out in the EAA, including the purpose of the EAA, the EA itself, the Review of the EA, comments received during the formal comment periods, in addition to other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

• give approval to proceed with the undertaking
• give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
• refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire EA to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a decision.

The Minister’s decision on the application is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

6.0 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval to proceed is given, the City will still need to obtain any other applicable permits or approvals for the design, construction and operation of the undertaking. Section 13 of the EA outlines the additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

• environmental Impact Study and re-zoning of lands under the Planning Act
• environmental Impact Study for permitting under The London Plan
• project registration under Ontario Regulation 242/08 of the Endangered Species Act for the temporary removal of Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark habitat
• Ontario Regulation 157/06 and Ontario Regulation 181/06 permits under the Conservation Authorities Act
• amendments to waste, air, and industrial sewage works ECAs under the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA)
• amendments to the EA for stormwater management pond under the OWRA
• Ontario Heritage Act for landfill expansion archaeological assessment reports compliant with the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists and entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports.

These approvals cannot be issued unless approval is given under the EAA.

6.1 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

Any changes to the undertaking outside the scope of this EA may be considered a new undertaking pursuant to section 12 of the EAA and may require the completion of a new individual EA or the Environmental Screening Process in accordance with Ontario Regulation 101/07 (Waste Management Projects) made under the EAA.

Making a submission?

A five-week public review period ending July 28, 2023 will follow the publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the EA, or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it electronically to Devon.Wills@Ontario.ca and address it to:

Director
Environmental assessment Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

Re:  W12A Lane Landfill Expansion Environmental assessment

Attention:  Devon Wills, Project Officer

Contact us

Please contact the ministry if you need further information:
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Environmental assessment Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario

• 416-314-8001
• Toll-free: 1-800-461-6290
• Fax: 416-314-8452

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference requirements of the environmental assessment

Appendix B: Submissions received during the initial comment period

Table 1: Government review team comment summary table

Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA)

KCCA staff have had the chance to review the documents and are satisfied that the questions and comments raised during the review of the Draft EA for the proposed W12A Landfill expansion have been sufficiently addressed in the Final EA and documented in the consultation log.

Proponent’s response

Acknowledged, no action required.

Status

KCCA has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Middlesex-london health unit (MLHU)

Comment #1

The City’s overall waste management strategy has addressed the need for waste diversion and waste reduction strategies that enable a healthy environment and reduce associated health impacts. The City’s Resource Recovery Strategy’s goal of a 60% waste diversion target from 45% is positive, and MLHU supports activities which further strengthen this. As London and Middlesex County continue to experience growth in population, the potential for generating waste will increase and the need for upstream solutions will be essential.

Proponent’s response

Acknowledged, no action required

Status

MLHU has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

Comment #2

Landfills have the potential for creating public health, environmental and socio-economic concerns if mitigation measures are not implemented. These concerns include surface and ground water contamination from leachate, landfill gases, vehicular emissions from transporting waste, odours, noise and disrupting areas that have archaeological and cultural heritage.

These concerns are worsened by climate change, as we continue to experience more extreme weather events. Mass flooding and extreme heat are anticipated to occur in greater frequency in the coming years and will place additional stress on landfill operations. In addition, the types of waste received at landfills could change in the future and require different disposal solutions.

Proponent’s response

Acknowledged, no action required.

Status

The proponent acknowledges MLHU’s statement regarding climate change and its potential effects on landfills and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #3

MLHU promotes the reduction and diversion of waste as an upstream strategy as opposed to focusing great amounts of attention on reactive solutions to address risks which could otherwise be mitigated through healthy practices. Active monitoring and contingency planning are crucial. The City’s overall waste management strategy addresses this focus.

Proponent’s response

Acknowledged, no action required.

Status

MLHU has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #4

MLHU is satisfied that the City has conducted a thorough and comprehensive EA that considers public health impacts and mitigation strategies, including impacts from Climate Change.

Proponent’s response

Acknowledged, no action required.

Status

MLHU has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

Comment #1

The EA did not investigate whether signals are currently, or when they will be warranted. The onus is put on the MTO and/or the City to undertake counts in the future to determine if signals are warranted.

Proponent’s response

It has been found that a traffic signal is warranted at the Eastbound Ramp Terminal / Manning Drive (South of Highway 401) when considering the December 2019 turning movement count, noting that the turning movement count data was only collected for 6 of the 8 required hours. However, when using the lowest hourly traffic volumes at the intersection to fill in the remaining two hourly periods, a traffic signal has been found to be warranted.

At the Westbound Ramp Terminal (North of Highway 401), a traffic signal is not warranted when considering the December 2019 turning movement count.

Currently there are no existing capacity issues found during the AM and PM peak hours at the Wonderland Road (Highway 4) and Highway 401 interchange. Within the study, traffic volumes have been projected out to a 2048 horizon year. Should the overall traffic volumes (of which the landfill-related traffic is only a small portion) increase as significantly as projected over the next 25+ years, it is anticipated that there would be some increased delays on the stop-controlled approaches, particularly on the Highway 401 off-ramps.

Status

MTO has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #2

The EA assumes signalization without geometric improvements, thereby resulting in the need for split phasing. (this is not acceptable but will produce LOS and capacity that is worse than if the intersection was properly improved). Left turn lanes would be required on all approaches, and advance left turn phases would need to be justified.

Proponent’s response

The December 2019 turning movement count at this intersection has found that a traffic signal is warranted at the south ramp terminals based on the collected traffic volumes.

It was noted that the Manning Drive phase (westbound approach) would only need to be activated 50% of the time during the a.m. peak hour and 30% of the time during the p.m. peak hour (this is due to the projected traffic volumes being quite low and there would be no calls on that leg of the intersection during certain signal timing cycles). As a result, it would allow for more green time to be provided for movements on the other three approaches and allow for all left-turn movements to have a protected signal phase. With these recommended signal timing and phasing parameters, all movements are projected to operate below capacity.

Status

MTO has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #3

Counts are nearly three years old.

Proponent’s response

It is proposed to continue to rely on the collected traffic data as it was collected just prior to the start of the COVID‑19 pandemic and is therefore considered to be more appropriate and representative than any traffic counts collected since then.

The turning movement count data at this interchange was collected only three months prior to the start of the COVID‑19 pandemic. The study was also submitted to the MTO in April 2021 for their review and consideration. At the time of submission, the traffic data was less than 18 months old and anything newer than that wouldn’t be as reliable due to temporary changes to traffic volumes that have occurred since March 2020.

Status

MTO has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #4

The study mentions that the Wonderland/401 ramp terminals would be at or above capacity in 2048; however, it does not provide any proposed mitigation measures. The report does not recommend signals but evaluates how well they would work if installed without improvements.

Proponent’s response

It was found in the December 2019 turning movement count at the Eastbound Ramp Terminal / Manning Drive intersection that a traffic signal was warranted based on the collected traffic volumes.

The increase in traffic by 2048 reflects the overall traffic increase, of which the landfill related traffic is only a small portion.

It was assessed that traffic signals could be introduced at one or more ramp terminals without any geometric changes. Doing so would ensure all movements operate well below capacity. However, should a traffic signal be constructed here, left turn lanes would need to be added on the east and west legs of the intersection as per MTOs policy.

Status

MTO has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #5

Under the Operation and Maintenance (7.7e) section, please provide confirmation that the revised operations manual will include a prevention/cleanup plan if a spill were to occur within the MTO property limit.

Proponent’s response

We have reviewed the Surface Water Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, and there is no Section 7.7 in that report. Section 6.0 of Appendix D.04 provides the proposed activities related to operations, maintenance and monitoring of the surface water management pond system at the W12A Landfill site, which is not relevant to the comment provided. In terms of the responsibility for dealing with spills from waste hauling vehicles if such spills were to occur on MTO property, that responsibility is borne by the waste haulers under their license to haul waste materials. Such off-site occurrences are not the responsibility of the City, or part of the operations plan for the W12A Landfill site.

Status

MTO has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP)- Environmental Assessment Branch

Comment #1

The EA provided an assessment of the ability of the Greenway Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) which is owned, operated and maintained by the City to continue to manage leachate from the W12A Landfill expansion. The EA also stated that as part of the expansion operations it is proposed to consider options to provide temporary leachate storage on the W12A Landfill site during storm events of significant magnitude that could result in discharge of the mixed leachate/sewage to Dingman Creek or the Thames River if the Greenway WWTP is in a by-pass situation.

The Greenway WWTP is partially separate sewer system, adequate leachate storage capacity needs to be determined to prevent overflow.

Proponent’s response

As part of the landfill expansion design, the City will design and provide temporary storage of leachate at the landfill site during large storm events when the Greenway WWTP may be in an overflow situation. The intent of this measure is so that leachate from the expanded W12A Landfill will not contribute to the increased flows that cause a temporary overflow situation at the WWTP, and thereby prevent the discharge of untreated leachate in the overflow. As described in the EA, the leachate comprises less than 0.5% of the flow receiving treatment at the WWTP. Modifications to the City sewer system, including sewer separation, to address overflows at the WWTP is a separate assessment by the City, not part of this EA for W12A Landfill Expansion project.

No change required in relation to the landfill expansion or EA.

Status

MECP has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #2

There will be changes to drainage areas and the resulting water balance. These changes are outlined in the EAs Stormwater Management Report, and are expected to have a negligible effect on runoff and drainage downstream of the site in both the Dingman and Dodd Creek subwatersheds.

The conservation authority should be consulted on changes to drainage areas with potential impacts to subwatersheds.

Proponent’s response

The UTRCA and KCCA Conservation Authorities, who are responsible for the Dodd Creek and Dingman Creek subwatersheds within which both the existing landfill and proposed expansion are located, were consulted. They reviewed the EA, provided comments and their concerns were satisfied through discussion with the City and the responses provided to their comments. The EA states that “It will, therefore, be prudent to engage both the UTRCA and KCCA in discussions to determine the potential requirements for a Section 28 Permit under the Ontario Regulation 157/06 and Ontario Regulation 181/06 under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The proponent’s comment has been addressed in EA and requires no changes.

Status

MECP has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP)- Species at Risk Branch

Comment #1

Rock and concrete piles may provide suitable habitat for species at risk bats, particularly Eastern Small-footed Myotis. These features are mentioned in the EA, but not considered in the Bat Habitat Assessment Section.

Eastern Small footed Myotis is a rock-loving species. They will roost in rock crevices or between rock spaces and habitat can include rock piles (either natural or man-made), man-made features (for example, bridge abutments, armor stone walls, waste rock piles, dam slopes or potentially some stone or concrete foundations).

MECP recommends that rock and concrete piles be assessed for potential bat habitat, if the project is likely to impact these features, and the assessment included in the EA.

Proponent’s response

The City will complete an assessment of suitable rock piles for Eastern Small footed Myotis within the proposed expansion area and within 120 metres of the proposed landfill activities. Should suitable rock piles be identified within an area of potential impact, acoustic monitoring will be completed to confirm the presence/absence of Eastern Small Footed Myotis.

No change is required to the EA. This work will be done by the City during the design phase for the ECA amendment application.

Status

MECP has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #2

The EAs Biology Report section, references Ontario Regulation 242/08. Please note, there have been updates to the regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the regulation specific to grassland birds is now under Ontario Regulation 830/21 (Barn Swallow, Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark and Butternut).

The reference to the regulation should be updated in the Biology (Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems) Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report.

Proponent’s response

The City acknowledges that there have been updates to the regulations under the ESA and that grassland birds are now regulated under Ontario Regulation 830/21. Species at Risk requirements for this project will be consistent with the updated regulations. No change is required to the EA.

Status

MECP has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #3

Further consultation with the MECP will be required to determine the ESA requirements for the project. No further action is required at this time.

Proponent’s response

Acknowledged. The City will engage in consultation with MECP with the submission of a Preliminary SAR Screening Memorandum that outlines the SAR within the study area, potential impacts and mitigation measures. There will then be follow up with MECP to discuss approval requirements after their review.

Status

MECP has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP) — Resource Recovery Policy Branch

Comment #1

This assumption effectively doubles the quantity of IC&I waste forecast to be received at W12A from 2024 to 2048, compared with the historical amount actually received. This is estimated to overstate the landfill capacity required by approximately 15% to 20%.

Given the availability of disposal options for IC&I waste in southwest Ontario, as well as the current practice of exporting IC&I waste to US disposal sites, and the lack of indication that these options may not be available in future, there is a lack of support or explanation for the City’s assertion that it must be prepared to provide affordable waste disposal for the portion of IC&I waste that is currently being sent elsewhere.

The City should provide an explanation and evidence of the need and rationale for why the portion of IC&I waste not presently or historically disposed of at the W12A Landfill in the EA landfill expansion waste disposal projections was included. As necessary, based on the explanation and evidence provided, the City should revise the waste disposal projections to reflect the quantity of IC&I waste anticipated to be disposed of at the W12A Landfill between 2024 and 2048. This may result in reducing the waste disposal capacity of this expansion proposal.

Proponent’s response

A meeting was held on May 12, 2022, with MECP and the City to discuss these comments. It was agreed that the City would provide a response to the comments providing additional information and clarification on the City’s rationale for inclusion of IC&I waste for disposal in the waste disposal projections and proposed landfill expansion volume.

The City’s provided MECP a response letter on August 3, 2022 which provided the rationale for the quantity of IC&I waste material included in the waste disposal projections and airspace over the 25 year planning period for the expansion of the W12A Landfill site. No change is required to the EA.

Status

MECP has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Table 2. Public comment summary table

W12A landfill public liaison committee

Comment #1

When the W12A Landfill was originally created, local residents interests were represented by the Township of Westminster (Township). The landfill was annexed (on January 1, 1993) by the City of London (City) to bring the W12A Landfill within its municipal boundaries. Since then, the City has lessened residents protections and compensatory benefits as described in the original agreement between the Township and the City (January 24, 1975), which includes declaring any remaining responsibilities related to that indenture and subsequent agreements, null and void through By-Law No. WM - 21, on June 26, 2006.

The W12A PLC requests that the EA include a review of these agreements and processes with the view of including an order(s) to restore and/or enhance local residents protections and benefits arising as a result of the 1975 indenture including any subsequent enhancements or erosions as a result of City’s actions.

Proponent’s response

The Indenture between the Township and the City dated January 24, 1975 and subsequent agreements provided residents and property owners in the vicinity with guarantees that the City would undertake certain actions to:

• Reduce nuisance impacts (for example, litter, dust, odour, etc.)
• Provide visual screening
• Establish groundwater, leachate, private well and surface water monitoring programs
• Control the types of waste disposed at the landfill
• Use certain landfill design parameters (for example, thickness of cover, landfill slopes, etc.)
• Provide compensation to the Township

The indentures and subsequent agreements were no longer in force once the Township became part of the City in 1993.

Landfill design and operations, as well as the provincial regulations that govern them, have evolved since the 1970s. There is a better understanding on how waste degrades in landfills, better prediction of potential impacts, enhanced landfill operating procedures and new engineering control measures for landfills as compared to the 1970s. The provincial regulations for landfills include more stringent operational requirements and environmental compliance performance standards. Considering the above, some commitments in the prior agreements would have to be modified if they were still valid today. An example of this is the thickness of the final cover in the indenture that would not be consistent with the requirements set out in provincial Ontario Regulation 232/98 (landfill standards). Other examples are the development of Phase 2 of the landfill with a full leachate underdrain collection system, the discontinuation of leachate hauling for treatment by constructing a forcemain, and providing the site with a landfill gas collection system.

The EA for the proposed landfill expansion, compared to the agreement, provides:

• Measures to prevent nuisance impacts similar to, or better than, the measures in the agreements plus additional mitigation measures
• Additional visual screening measures
• Environmental monitoring programs that have been expanded and updated to reflect current site information
• Similar restrictions on the types of waste that can be disposed of at the landfill
• Updated landfill design parameters to be consistent with the requirements set out in Ontario Regulation 232/98 (landfill standards), which came into effect in 1998

The previous agreement provided for annual payments to the Township and no cost disposal of waste for Township residents. The City developed a Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program that provides for more benefits than the original agreement. These benefits include:

• Property Value Protection Plan
• Annual payments to nearby property owners who join the Right of First Refusal Program
• Community Mitigative Measures Fund
• No Charge Waste Disposal for area residents
• Public Liaison Committee

Annual payments are made to the Community Mitigative Measures Fund equivalent to the money that would have previously been paid to the Township. The W12A Landfill PLC recommends to City Council how these funds are spent.

Status

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #2

We are opposed to the landfill accepting waste from outside the City limits, including any bio-waste. Should bio-waste continue to get disposed of at the landfill intermittently, the committee requests that all residents within a 1 km radius of the landfill be notified by email and letter mail in advance of the bio-waste being accepted. This advance notification allows any outside activities the people in the surrounding area have planned, to possibly be rescheduled or rearranged.

Proponent’s response

The City agrees to notify residents within the vicinity of landfill when biosolids and/or lime stabilized biosolids are being delivered to the W12A Landfill for disposal. The City will consult with the W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee to develop the notification procedures and include the commitment to notify residents in the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program document that is currently being updated.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the commitments made by the proponent for notifications as described in the proponent’s response.

Comment #3

The W12A PLC seeks assurance that Section C of the indenture between the City and The Township, dated January 24, 1975, be reviewed as to its current relevance for a well-regulated and administered Landfill Site and to ensure enforcement terminology is covered by the regulations and agreements arising from the current EA process.

The 1975 Indenture requires:

• Clause 4 (a): a buffer strip along the southerly and westerly boundaries of the Landfill Site having a perpendicular width of 300 feet, a buffer strip along the northerly and easterly boundaries of the Landfill Site having a perpendicular width of 150 feet.
• Clause 4 (d): within such buffer zone and behind such row of trees at points adjacent to the actual working area, a 15 foot high berm seeded in grass to isolate the landfill operation.
• Clause 4 (m): all of the existing test boreholes at the Site shall be preserved and, where necessary, suitably equipped to enable the monitoring of ground water in the manner hereinafter provided in Section 5 hereof.
• Clause 5 (b): utilize the Landfill Site solely for the purposes of the disposal of Disposable Waste Materials.
• Clause 5 (c): not utilize the Landfill Site for the purpose of the disposal of Non-Disposable Waste Materials.
• Clause 5 (e): ensure that excavations made on site for clean earth fill shall be carried out in such manner as not to cause slippage or cave-in.
• Clause 5 (f): ensure that daily cells shall consist of maximum 2 feet compacted layers of waste with a total maximum compacted height of 8 feet.
• Daily cell slope faces shall be no greater than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical slope.
• Clause 5 (g): ensure that daily cover shall be a minimum of 9 inches of compacted clean fill material. Cover material shall be applied as soon as possible and in any event at the end of each day. Any cracking, settling, or eroding of cover shall be promptly repaired to minimize percolation.
• Clause 5 (h): ensure that final cover shall be a minimum of 4 feet of clean earth fill the first foot of which shall be heavily compacted and the remainder shall be so treated, worked and seeded as to be suitable for the final designated agricultural and/or recreational uses. Final slopes shall be no greater than 4 horizontal to 1 vertical and not less than one percent (1%) grade.
• Clause 5 (o): ensures that nuisance caused by paper and debris shall be controlled by means of the use of 16 foot high netting erected on portable stands and maintained near the working face. Dust along internal roads leading to the working area shall be controlled by means of the careful use of salt or light oil or the spreading of water by means of the tank truck referred to above; it being the intention that all reasonable efforts shall be taken to control the escape of dust into lands adjoining the Landfill Site so as to- avoid damage to pasture, crops or other farm operations.
• Clause 5 (r): take all steps as may be necessary to control any abnormal escape of gases and odours from the Landfill Site and to abate any nuisance during the operation of the Site.
• Clause 5 (s): maintain and, where necessary, replace trees planted to screen the Landfill Site from view and replant, where necessary, grass on all finished slopes within the Landfill Site.
• Clause 5 (v): exercise reasonable efforts to regulate the flow of municipal refuse vehicles so as not to coincide with peak traffic periods along the designated route at or near the Landfill Site.
• Clauses 6 (a through d): Prior to and during the operation of the Landfill Site the City shall test the quality of samples of water taken from
  • the existing test boreholes, thereon
  • leachate drains
  • drainage ditches such wells of residents within the vicinity of the Landfill Site as may be designated by the Waste Management Branch of the Ministry of the Environment or by the Medical Officer of Health for the Middlesex--London District Health Unit

Proponent’s response

A review of 1975 Indenture Clauses has been provided below:

• Clause 4 (a): Proposed expanded landfill site has a buffer of 91.5 m (300 ft) on the southerly and westerly sides, a buffer of 100 m (330 ft) on the easterly side of the landfill, and a buffer of 300 m (990 ft) on the north side.
• Clause 4 (d): As part of the visual screening plan, the City will be constructing new berms with tree plantings along the new extended property boundary (White Oak Road northward to Scotland Drive, Scotland Drive) to complement the existing berms and trees (White Oak Road southward to Manning Drive, Manning Drive). The City will seek feedback on appropriate roadside view-mitigation measures from area residents.
• Clause 4 (m): The W12A Landfill has had a groundwater monitoring program since 1976 (year before landfill began operation). The groundwater monitoring program for the existing landfill has been expanded and updated to reflect current site information and the proposed landfill expansion. A summary of the proposed groundwater monitoring program for the proposed landfill expansion has been provided in the EA. The monitoring program parameters are generally consistent with the requirements set out in Ontario Regulation 232/98 (landfill standards).
• All original monitoring well locations from 1976 (date of indenture) have been included in the proposed groundwater monitoring program for the proposed landfill expansion. More monitoring wells have also been added to the groundwater monitoring program over the years of site operation, in consultation with and approved by the MECP.
• Clause 5 (b): The definition of Disposable Waste Materials includes garbage, refuse, paper products, furniture, building waste materials and biosolids. How waste is described/defined has evolved over time, including for MECP approval purposes.
• The existing W12A Landfill is licensed to receive solid non-hazardous municipal waste. This includes solid non-hazardous waste generated from the residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sectors. The proposed landfill will also be licensed to only receive solid non-hazardous municipal waste.
• Clause 5 (c): The definition of Non-Disposable Waste Materials is explosive or highly combustible materials, car bodies, trees stumps above a specified size, scrap metal, corrosive or toxic materials, carcasses of animal larger than a dog, certain building materials, and liquid waste.
  • hazardous waste
  • liquid waste
  • leaf and yard waste materials (including stumps)
  • construction, demolition, and renovation waste
  • scrap metal
  • large animal carcasses for disposal

How waste is described/defined has evolved over time, including for MECP approval purposes. For example, toxic can mean leachate toxic or hazardous waste, both of which are defined in Ontario Regulation 347.

The proposed restrictions on materials accepted at the proposed landfill expansion are consistent with the previous agreements with the Township.

The existing landfill and proposed landfill expansion are not licensed to accept:

• leaf and yard waste materials (including stumps)
• construction, demolition, and renovation waste
• scrap metal
• large animal carcasses for disposal

The City does accept some of these materials at the landfill for waste diversion purposes. Scrap metal is recycled. Stumps and wood waste are ground into wood chips and reused.

• Clause 5 (e): No excavations of clean fill for cover material are proposed for the landfill expansion. Cover material will come from existing stockpiles, final cover stripped from the existing landfill and from off-site sources.
• Geotechnical analysis demonstrates that the proposed expansion will be stable in terms of overall stability of the waste.
• Clause 5 (f): The proposed daily cell construction is consistent with these requirements. The waste will be spread and compacted in lifts of about 0.6 m (2 feet) to a height of approximately 3 m (10 feet). The EA does not specify the daily cell slope face but no greater than a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical slope is typically used in the industry.
• Clause 5 (g): Daily cover requirements for the existing approval for the W12A Landfill and for the proposed expansion of the landfill is 150 mm (6 inches) of cover material. This is standard practice for landfills in Ontario and consistent with the requirements set out in Ontario Regulation 232/98 (landfill standards).
• Cover material will be applied at the end of each day to cover all waste received except in the non-decomposable waste cell (no organic waste will be placed in this cell).
• Clause 5 (h): The final slopes of the expansion are in accordance with the requirements set out in the indenture. The final cover design for the expansion consists of 0.6 m (2 feet) of soil and 0.15 m (0.5 feet) of topsoil. This is consistent with the requirements set out in Ontario Regulation 232/98 (landfill standards).
• There is a better understanding of how waste degrades and leachate is generated and should be managed in landfills as compared to the 1970s. The design philosophy has gone from a dry tomb approach (keep water out of the landfill) in the 1970’s to a controlled degradation approach (have waste degrade faster during the operating life of the leachate collection system). This current approach is reflected in the design of the proposed final cover for the expanded landfill.
• Clause 5 (o): The current landfill has 6 portable nets approximately 3.7 metres (12 feet) high and 7 metres (23 feet) long that are used at the tipping face to control blowing litter. The number and placement of the portable fences depends on the weather and tipping face location.
• The use of portable netting to control litter from the tipping face will continue with the proposed expansion of the landfill. The City has also placed permanent litter netting at the tops of the on-site screening berms at key locations.
• To minimize potential off-site impacts from dust the City will:
• apply dust suppressant on unpaved roads on a routine basis
• water paved roads as required
• sweep/clean the roads as required to prevent mud track out on vehicles, and prepare a fugitive dust management plan and complaints response protocol
• Clause 5 (r): The goal of the City is to reduce and minimize off-site odours from landfill site operations as much as possible. To accomplish this, the design of the landfill expansion will incorporate a number of measures to further reduce odours, such as:
  • Installation of both horizontal collector pipes during ongoing landfilling operations and vertical wells during landfill cell closure to increase the capture of landfill gas (which contains the compounds that cause odour). It is expected the efficiency of the gas collection system will increase from 60% to 85%
  • Landfill will be capped and LFG collection system installed and put into operations progressively as Phases of landfilling are completed
  • Approximately double the size of the existing gas flaring station. The flaring system destroys over 99% of the odour causing compounds
  • Minimize the size of the active tipping face as much as practical (approximately 1,500 m²).
• When approving projects, the MECP uses a guideline of 1 odour unit (OU/m³) based on the 99.5 percentile on a ten-minute time averaging period to assess the potential for odour nuisance at a potential receptor off the landfill site. 1 OU/m³ is defined as the concentration at which 50% of the population can perceive an odour; therefore, 1 OU/m³ is typically used as an indicator for the likelihood of nuisance associated with odour.
• Air quality modelling completed for the EA indicates that the proposed expansion will be within the MECP guideline. See Volume IV Appendix D.01 Air Quality Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment W12A Landfill Expansion EA, City of London, Ontario (Golder Associates, 2020).
• Air quality monitoring will be undertaken as the more technical Environmental Protection Act approval for the landfill expansion is pursued and during initial operations of the landfill expansion. This will include:
• Verify that the odour emission rates used in the odour assessment which will include:
  • One-time landfill gas sampling early in the expansion to confirm emission rates from the site of indicator compounds
  • Sampling analysis to include odourous compounds, Vinyl Chloride and Hydrogen Sulphide
• Review and update the odour management plan and complaints response protocol.
• Clause 5 (s): As part of the visual screening plan, the City will be constructing new berms with tree plantings along the new extended property boundary (White Oak Road northward to Scotland Drive, Scotland Drive) to complement the existing berms and trees (White Oak Road southward to Manning Drive, Manning Drive). Maintaining and replacing damaged/dead trees that are part of the screening plan is part of the standard operating procedure for the landfill.
• The landfill will be progressively revegetated as landfilling is completed in the expansion phases. Plantings will include grasses and native species that are known to occur within the region and may include compensation plantings as determined through consultation with the MECP for Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark habitat compensation. Maintaining the vegetation on the final cover is part of the standard operating procedure for the landfill.
• Clause 5 (v): The Traffic Assessment assumed that traffic accessing the landfill will increase by 21% over the anticipated service life of the proposed expanded W12A Landfill Site. This includes both passenger vehicles and larger waste hauling vehicles. Landfill associated traffic volumes accessing the site from Wellington Road and Wonderland road were estimated to comprise only 1.9% and 1.7% of the total traffic volume on these roadways during the AM peak hour, respectively. Landfill associated traffic volumes accessing the site from Wellington Road and Wonderland Road were estimated to comprise only 1.6% and 1.4% of the total traffic volume on these roadways during the PM peak hour, respectively. The estimated landfill-related traffic volumes during peak periods on the respective haul routes is very low.
• Clauses 6 (a through d): The W12A Landfill has had as part of its operating approvals groundwater, surface water, leachate and private water well monitoring programs since 1976 (the approvals for these programs were issued a year before landfill began operation). These monitoring programs have been progressively expanded and updated to reflect current site information and operations, as well as for the proposed landfill expansion. A summary of the proposed groundwater, surface water, leachate and neighbouring water wells monitoring program for the proposed landfill expansion has been provided in the EA. The monitoring program parameters are generally consistent with the requirements set out in Ontario Regulation 232/98 (landfill standards).

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #4

Attached hereto is a copy of the letter submitted by the PLC dated November 5, 2018 as a reminder of our continued comments regarding the expansion.

Proponent’s response

The City acknowledges the PLC 2018 comments received by MECP and that the City provided a response to MECP dated January 2019.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has received and acknowledged the information provided by the resident.

Comment #5

Finally, the W12A PLC endorse the letter submitted by Resident 1 dated March 14, 2022 already submitted to you.

Proponent’s response

Acknowledged

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Resident 1

Comment #1

The City has taken a loose approach to odour control at the W12A Landfill. In our experience, if the wind is blowing in our direction, we can smell the dump. This does not feel like odour control, but random weather patterns. The City speaks of additional air quality monitoring being incorporated in the EA, however, in the assessment, the measurement for odour is not explained only theorized. The City should focus on odour suppression and what levels they must abide by to maintain its operation.

Proponent’s response

The goal of the City is to reduce and minimize off-site odours from landfill site operations as much as possible. To accomplish this, the design of the landfill expansion will incorporate a number of odour reduction measures such as:

• Installation of both horizontal landfill gas collector pipes during ongoing landfilling operations and vertical landfill gas extraction wells during landfill cell closure to increase the capture of landfill gas (which contains the compounds that cause odour). It is expected the efficiency of the gas collection system will increase from 60% to 85%
• The landfill will be capped and LFG collection system installed and put into operations progressively as Phases of the landfill expansion are completed
• Approximately double the size of the existing gas flaring station. The flaring system destroys over 99% of the odour causing compounds
• Minimize the size of the active tipping face as much as practical (approximately 1,500 m²)

When approving projects, the MECP uses a guideline of 1 odour unit (OU/m³) based on the 99.5 percentile on a ten-minute time averaging period to assess the potential for odour nuisance at a potential receptor off the landfill site. 1 OU/m³ is defined as the concentration at which 50% of the population can perceive an odour, therefore 1 OU/m³ is typically used as an indicator for the likelihood of nuisance associated with odour. Air quality modelling completed for the EA indicates that the proposed expansion will be within the MECP guideline.

Additional air quality modelling and monitoring will be undertaken as the more technical Environmental Protection Act approval for the landfill expansion is pursued and during initial operations of the landfill expansion. This will include: 

• Verify that the odour emission rates used in the odour assessment were reasonable. This will include:
  • One-time landfill gas sampling early in the expansion to confirm emission rates from the site of indicator compounds
  • Sampling analysis to include odourous compounds, Vinyl Chloride and Hydrogen Sulphide
• Review and update the odour management plan and complaints response protocol.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has committed to several mitigation measures for managing odour form the site.

Comment #2

Residents should be informed every time Bio-Waste from Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is diverted to W12A Landfill for maintenance and unexpected shutdowns, due to elevated odour levels during this period.

Proponent’s response

Biosolids is the sludge byproduct typical of all WWTPs and is a type of waste material that is often disposed in a municipal landfill. The City uses a lime stabilization process on the biosolids before sending the material to the landfill that reduces the odours of the biosolids.

The City agrees to notify residents within the vicinity of landfill when Bioset is being delivered to the W12A Landfill for co-disposal with the residual waste. The City will consult with the W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee to develop the notification procedures and include the commitment to notify residents in the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program document, which is currently being updated.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s commitment to notify residents.

Comment #3

The tipping side of the landfill should not be seen by residents. Several Landfills in the area are surrounded by a large berm that completely hides the dump’s activities. This should also be implemented at the W12A Landfill.

Proponent’s response

The perimeter berms around sides of the existing landfill, and the proposed expansion, which is effective in cutting off the view of the landfill as seen from the adjacent roadways. However, depending on the topography in the area of the landfill, such berms are not necessarily effective in screening the view of the landfill from more distant off-site viewpoints, i.e., in this case from properties along Glanworth Drive that are more than 1 km from the landfill.

Residents living on Glanworth Drive south of the landfill, like yourself, will be screened from the operations of the landfill. The site development plan proposes that waste would be placed initially to build a berm along the south side of the landfill’s waste disposal area and will be covered with final cover soil and seeded to establish vegetation. This berm will screen the view of subsequent filling operations north of the berm from off-site vantage points to the south.

The City will be constructing new berms around the landfill to screen the landfill from the adjacent roadways. The City will seek feedback on roadside view-mitigation measures from area residents as it updates its Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program.

The City is seeking feedback on how the existing Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program can be improved, including what are appropriate screening measures for private properties. This could include the City providing funding to properties with visual impacts to construct screening measures on the individual properties (for example, plant trees).

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s commitments for berm construction around the site.

Comment #4

The EA states that the W12A Landfill will take other Counties’ garbage. At present, these Counties have a divergence rate of 38%. The City should not accept waste from other Counties unless they meet the City’s divergent rate of 60%.

Proponent’s response

Having residual waste disposal capacity available for municipalities outside of the City from the proposed regional service area municipalities does not mean that London is obligated to accept waste from these municipalities in the future. City Council will have the authority to determine which municipalities or businesses outside of the City can use and under what conditions they will be allowed to do so. For example, the City may require municipalities and businesses to demonstrate that their diversion rate matches or exceeds the City’s diversion rate to be allowed to dispose of residual waste at the W12A Landfill. Only a minor portion of the design capacity (about 5%) has been allotted to waste from the regional service area.

Feedback was obtained from stakeholders at Open House #3 to obtain feedback on appropriate conditions for accepting waste from the regional service area.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #5

Concern that the City cannot reach their 60% divergence rate without a Green Bin strategy and the continued building of high-rise living with no recycling taking place in these buildings.  If 60% divergence is not attainable, is there a contingency or repercussions?

Proponent’s response

Information on the City’s waste diversion initiatives including how it proposes to reach a residential diversion rate of 60% is documented in the EA. Council has approved the implementation of a Green Bin program and the City is waiting for the delivery of new collection trucks to begin implementation of the program.

The City provides Blue Box recycling collection services to all multi-residential buildings at no cost. All City residents (single family and multi-residential) have access to the City’s EnviroDepots that provide recycling services for a number of non-Blue Box materials (for example, electronics, scrap metal, ceramics, tires, batteries, propane tanks, empty oil containers, etc.).

There is no contingency in the design capacity of the landfill in the event the 60% diversion target is not achieved. The City can only develop an expanded landfill that has the approved design capacity as presented in the EA, which was based on 60% residential diversion being achieved by the end of 2022. The repercussion of not achieving the diversion rate is that the landfill will consume its approved capacity more quickly, which is undesirable for both the City and its residents.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #6

W12A Landfill looks dishevelled, and the surrounding City-owned property is not taken care of, which leads to non-residents treating the surrounding land like their personal landfill. The parking area of the nearby church is used regularly by people to leave their garbage.  It is sometimes weeks before landfill employees pick the garbage up.

Proponent’s response

Landfill staff patrol the roads surrounding the landfill daily for litter and illegal dumping. Potential changes to the landfill’s off-site litter management program can be considered as part of the review of the existing Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program. Any changes can be formalized and added to the revised Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program and/or to the Design and Operations report for the landfill expansion.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #7

The current compensation package is not enough considering the changes forced on us. We must endure constant odours, unsightly views and the mental stress due to uncertainty. The landfill initially was to close in 2025, now it’s getting expanded and extended to 2049. Part of the compensation package should include a clause to eliminate our property taxes. We have owned our property longer than the dump has been in existence. We feel the Property Value Protection Act (PVPA) currently in place does not benefit landowners in a market that is turning over at a rapid pace. The PVPA process can take months or even years.

Proponent’s response

The City has a Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program that includes:

• Property Value Protection Plan
• Annual payments as part of the Right of First Refusal Program
• Community Mitigative Measures Fund
• No Charge Waste Disposal
• Public Liaison Committee

The City has sought feedback from the community on how the existing Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program can be improved. Staff are currently reviewing the feedback and will be developing a revised Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program for consideration by council.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Resident 2

Comment #1

The visual impact of the W12A Landfill’s proposed vertical expansion is of concern. The following considerations should be included in the approved EA.

• The lack of adequate screening measures from all property boundaries of the proposed site indicates an undervalued impact being created.

Proponent’s response

The City will be constructing new berms, as proposed in the EA, around the landfill to complete screening of the view of the landfill from the adjacent roadways. The City will seek feedback on appropriate roadside view-mitigation measures from area residents as it updates its Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s  commitments for berm construction around the site.

Comment #2

As per the proposed site plan and mitigative measures, there is only adequate measure possible for people within close proximity on the south perimeter.

Since we are a north perimeter view resident, it is important to note that an adequate solution has not been proposed to aid in any way the visual impact created by the project. No measures have been provided or identified to reduce the visual impact on the remaining 3 property boundaries.

Privately owned properties will suffer negative consequences if this matter is not addressed. A tall permanent berm should be added, along with tree plantings on top for the landfill’s perimeter. A property assessment should be undertaken to identify where additional tree plantings are needed.

The trees should be supplied by the City and would lessen the visual impact if the required earth berm does not provide sufficient screening for the privately owned property.

Proponent’s response

Residents living south of the landfill will be screened from the operations of the landfill. The site development plan proposes that waste would be placed initially to build a berm along the south side of the landfill’s waste disposal area and will be covered with final cover soil and seeded to establish vegetation. This berm will screen the view of subsequent filling operations north of the berm from off-site vantage points to the south.

The City is seeking feedback on how the existing Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program can be improved, including what are appropriate screening measures for other private properties. This could include the City providing funding to properties with visual impacts to construct screening measures on the individual properties (for example, plant trees).

For residents to the north, an earth berm with trees on top of it will be constructed along the length of the landfill property boundary along Scotland Drive. It is noted that there are design limitations on the height of berm to be built. Measures to provide additional screening of views from individual properties to the north can be assessed on an individual property basis.

The case-by-case approach is currently being used at this particular property with respect to the proposed placement of trees between the home and the landfill.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s  commitments for berm construction around the site.

Comment #3

Historically the conditions that local residents are subjected to has been sub standard and often results in the inability to be outside. The air quality and odor must be brought to a higher level, so that residents can enjoy their property outdoors.

The EA should implement higher standards:

• The gas collection system does not indicate the level of attained capture and does not give assurances that it will reduce the air and odor impacts. The EA should provide:
  • 70% gas and airborne contaminants capture level should be implemented
  • A measurable tolerance of emitted methane and odorous gas
• Residents within close proximity should not be forced indoors often as a consequence.

Proponent’s response

The landfill gas collection and flaring system has been designed to achieve an 85% collection efficiency, and from the captured gas will destroy 99% of the odour-causing compounds.

Status

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that would require the proponent to re-evaluate the viability of landfill gas utilization four years after EA approval and every four years thereafter.

Comment #4

The risks involved when disturbing the past landfill have not been identified in the EA. Operational Measures to react to a severe odour outbreak within a reasonable time frame must be implemented to reduce the impact, not allowing an odour outbreak to last months.

The EA does not provide an upgraded daily capping procedure, and the current procedure does not provide adequate protection to local residents. Odor and wind-blown debris are a result of the current system. The proposed capping management for daily and final grading does not address that is not often possible to implement the proposed procedure due to common weather occurrences, such as a rainstorm. Local residents should not have to retreat indoors to escape odours for days after an often-predictable weather occurrence.

Proponent’s response

The area of exposed waste would be limited to that needed to spread, compact and cover the waste received on a daily basis, and will vary depending on the quantity of daily waste received. As is the current practice and in accordance with the site’s existing operating permit and the requirements of Ontario Regulation 232/98 Landfill Standards, all waste will be covered daily; covering is not just at the end of the day, it is ongoing throughout the day on top of completed lifts. Windblown debris will be controlled by using litter fencing around the active area, and regular checking and pick up of litter off-site.

To reduce air emissions (for odour control purposes during landfilling operations and to increase the overall collection of landfill gases), horizontal LFG collection pipes will be installed progressively as waste is placed.

Final capping is only done after an area has reached its final approved contours and will be done progressively during the operational period of the landfill expansion phases; areas that have not reached their final contours but will not be active for a period of weeks to months will receive an increased thickness of interim cover.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #5

Residents oppose the allowance of depositing biowaste or similar in the landfill, as the odor management can not be controlled. The results can be intolerable odor while it takes place for weeks at a time on a yearly basis. Biowaste should be eliminated from being deposited in the landfill.

Proponent’s response

The City is currently updating its Biosolids Management Master Plan to ensure the City’s biosolids are managed in a way that is sustainable, protects our environment, and has the capacity to handle the City’s growing population.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #6

The EA does not manage the potential risks for safe drinking water for residents. The proposed monitoring of local residences water wells is insufficient to prevent contamination and should be held to higher standard. The city of London should be testing every point source water well within a 5 km radius on a quarterly basis for the necessary EA approval. A resident should not have the responsibility or burden for these water tests, but it should be the City’s responsibility to ensure safe drinking water and have a solution in place if contaminants are detected as result of leachate infiltration.

Proponent’s response

The landfill site is located in a favourable geologic setting, underlain by a thick deposit of low permeability clay till that provides a natural barrier to the downward and lateral movement of landfill leachate and groundwater. The City estimates that groundwater will take several hundred years to move from the bottom of the landfill to the underlying groundwater aquifer layer within the landfill site boundary, and then longer to travel in the aquifer layer to water wells used by residents in the area.

The groundwater quality impact assessment was modeled, and the results were compared to MECP groundwater quality standards. The modelling demonstrated that the proposed design met the MECP groundwater quality requirements for protection of the off-site use of groundwater for water supply. The City has a groundwater well monitoring network around the landfill that will serve as an early warning system should groundwater migration vary from what is predicted and expected. Groundwater monitoring will be undertaken three times per year.

Nearby residential water wells will be monitored annually. It is known that groundwater flow in the area of the landfill is southward, and the landfill site does not have the potential to affect groundwater quality to the north, east or west of the landfill site property. Fourteen residential water wells have been included in the residential water well monitoring program, including all downgradient wells within 1.25 km’s of the landfill. The City will be fully responsible if a water supply well is contaminated by landfill leachate; however, the City is otherwise not responsible for the quality of a resident’s individual water well supply.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s on-going commitment for annual residential water well monitoring.

Resident 3

Comment #1

Concerns regarding the increased odour from the W12A Landfill, it’s potential expansion and impacts to their lives. The landfill’s odour is the most important issue that needs to be resolved.

The City states that weather conditions also impact the smell from the landfill. Which does not appear to be odour control, more like the random directional wind of the weather. The City speaks of additional air quality monitoring being incorporated in the EA, but measurement for odour is not explained only theorized.

Proponent’s response

The goal of the City is to reduce and minimize off-site odours from landfill site operations as much as possible. To accomplish this, the design of the landfill expansion will incorporate a number of measures to reduce odours such as:

• Installation of both horizontal landfill gas collector pipes during ongoing landfilling operations and vertical landfill gas extraction wells during landfill cell closure to increase the capture of landfill gas (which contains the compounds that cause odour) It is expected the efficiency of the gas collection system will increase from 60% to 85%
• The landfill will be capped and LFG collection system installed and put into operations progressively as Phases of the landfill expansion are completed
• Approximately double the size of the existing gas flaring station. The flaring system destroys over 99% of the odour causing compounds
• Minimize the size of the active tipping face as much as practical (approximately 1,500 m²)

When approving projects, the MECP uses a guideline of 1 odour unit (OU/m³) based on the 99.5 percentile on a ten-minute time averaging period to assess the potential for odour nuisance at a potential receptor off the landfill site. 1 OU/m³ is defined as the concentration at which 50% of the population can perceive an odour, therefore 1 OU/m³ is typically used as an indicator for the likelihood of nuisance associated with odour.

Air quality modelling completed for the EA indicates that the proposed expansion will be within the MECP guideline. Additional air quality modelling and monitoring will be undertaken as the more technical Environmental Protection Act approval for the landfill expansion is pursued and during initial operations of the landfill expansion. This will include:

• Verify that the odour emission rates used in the odour assessment were reasonable. This will include:
  • One-time landfill gas sampling early in the expansion to confirm emission rates from the site of indicator compounds
  • Sampling analysis to include odourous compounds, Vinyl Chloride and Hydrogen Sulphide
• Review and update the odour management plan and complaints response protocol

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has committed to several mitigation measures for managing odour form the site.

Comment #2

It should be mandatory that the City notify residents every time Bio-Waste from Greenway Waste Pollution Plant (WWTP), or any Bio-Waste Plant, is diverted to W12A Landfill. The Bio-Waste significantly increases the odour of the W12A Landfill and advance notice surrounding area residents should be mandatory.

Proponent’s response

Biosolids is the sludge byproduct typical of all WWTPs and is a type of waste material that is often disposed in a municipal landfill. The City uses a lime stabilization process on the biosolids before sending the material to the landfill that reduces the odours of the biosolids.

The City agrees to notify residents within the vicinity of landfill when Bioset is being delivered to the W12A Landfill for co-disposal with the residual waste. The City will consult with the W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee to develop the notification procedures and include the commitment to notify residents in the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program document which is currently being updated.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s commitment to notify residents.

Comment #3

The W12A Landfill is the only facility capable of taking the Bio-Waste when the Greenway WWTP is down for repair, maintenance and inspection. This is not a solution; the poor engineering of the Greenway WWTP should be fixed. If the W12A Landfill needs to receive 25% of the Greenway WWTPs bio-waste yearly, then the Greenway WWTP should be required to build a backup incinerator to remove this excess waste.

Proponent’s response

The City is currently updating its Biosolids Management Master Plan to ensure the City’s biosolids are managed in a way that is sustainable, protects our environment, and has the capacity to handle the City’s growing population.

Information on the Master Plan and how to become involved in the process can be found at: Biosolids Management Master Plan.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Siskinds LLP on behalf of Farhi Holdings

Comment #1

The FHC Lands are situated to the north, east and west of the W12A Landfill. The W12A Landfill expansion will result in detrimental impacts to the FHC Lands (for example, potential for stigma, impacts to socio-economic environment, nuisance impacts, visual impacts, reduction in property value, restrictions on development opportunity, increased odour, dust, reduction of enjoyment of residents outdoor spaces, and increased traffic).

The W12A Expansion’s EA dismisses the impacts on the surrounding area on the basis that they already exist. The proposed mitigation measures include updating the plans and best management practices associated with the landfill’s operation without providing any direction as to which measures will mitigate the impacts on the surrounding area.

Proponent’s response

The W12A Landfill expansion will meet all applicable MECP standards with respect to odour and other potential off-site nuisance impacts from the landfill and will follow mitigation measures as documented in the EA.

The City has a property value protection plan (PVPP) for residential properties within 1 kilometre of the landfill and for agricultural properties within 0.5 kilometre of the landfill provided the property was purchased prior to August 2006. Properties purchased after August 2006 are not included in the PVPP because:

• the City passed a by-law in August 2006 allowing for the continued operation of the landfill beyond its proposed closing date and allowing for expansion of the landfill.
• The City commenced the W12A Landfill Area Plan process in 2005 to study the evolution of the W12A Landfill facility within an overall integrated waste management centre with a planning horizon of 40 years.

The above factors would have been reflected in the purchase price when buying a property after August 2006.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent has committed to several mitigation measures for managing odour form the site.

Comment #2

The W12A Landfill EA reports that several FHC properties are identified either as a sensitive receptor location or in the proximity of a sensitive receptor location.

The W12A EA states that much of the lands within the Site-Vicinity Study Area, near the current landfill property are owned by the City. Out of the approximately 81 sites in the vicinity of the W12A Landfill identified only 13 appear, being merely 16%, of the properties in the Site-Vicinity study area being owned by the City.

Proponent’s response

The W12A Landfill’s EA Figure 5.2-2 shows locations used in the model to predict concentrations for various air quality indicator compounds, including odour. Modelling shows the landfill will be in compliance with all applicable MECP standards with respect to air quality standards, including odour.

The W12A Landfill’s EA Figures 1.1-2 and 5.2.2 show City-owned land in the vicinity of the landfill. The City owns the majority of land (approximately 300 hectares) and residential properties within 1 kilometre of the landfill.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #3

The W12A Landfill EA summarizes the setting within which the landfill property is located and the surrounding lands. This assessment was conducted by a windshield survey that disregarded the development potential of lands situated along the Highway 401 / Highway 402 major transportation corridor and Wonderland Road South gateway corridor.

The W12A Landfill Expansion will result in negatively impacts the ability of the FHC Lands to achieve their full development potential. The FHC property needs to be taken into consideration when determining mitigation measures for the project, including but not limited to an appropriate compensation plan for these social impacts.

Proponent’s response

The windshield survey described in Section 5.7 of the W12A Landfill EA was for the specific purpose of assessing the types of current agricultural activities within the Site-vicinity Study Area.

Potential hypothetical development on the lands situated along the Highway 401 / Highway 402 and Wonderland Road South gateway corridor in the vicinity of the W12A Landfill was not considered in the EA because these lands are outside the study area for the proposed landfill expansion. These lands were not considered also, because:

• The City passed a by-law in August 2006 allowing for the continued operation of the landfill beyond its proposed closing date and allowing for expansion of the landfill.
• The City commenced the W12A Landfill Area Plan process in 2005 to study the evolution of the W12A Landfill facility within an overall integrated waste management centre with a planning horizon of 40 years.
• One of the outcomes of the W12A Landfill Area Plan was changes to the City’s Official Plan that discourages official plan and/or zoning by-law amendments to allow the development of new residential uses or other sensitive land uses within a 1,500 metre radius of the Waste Management Resource Recovery Area Place Type (City of London Official Plan Section 1273).

The above factors would have been taken into consideration of the purchase price and development potential when purchasing a property near the landfill.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #4

The W12A Landfill expansion ignores the province’s Resource Recovery Strategy and the Residual Waste Disposal Strategy and fails to promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, energy recover and/or waste conversion in an environmentally responsible manner. While the City states that it proposes to implement the Resource Recovery Strategy such that 60% residential diversion will be achieved by the end of 2022. there is no discussion, explanation or plan provided as to how the City proposes to specifically achieve these diversion rates. Instead of focusing on the expansion of the W12A Landfill the City’s efforts should be focused on opportunities for advanced resource recovery and increased waste diversion throughout the City’s service area.

Proponent’s response

The City’s initiatives to achieve waste diversion has been undertaken in a separate Updated Resource Recovery Strategy, which has been fully considered in the planning of the proposed landfill expansion.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #5

The W12A Landfill Expansion EA states: We expect no increase and possibly a reduction in impacts from blowing garbage associated with the expansion of the W12A Landfill. This statement is not supported by the information provided and fails to recognize that additional approximately one billion tonnes of waste being brought to the area.

Proponent’s response

The reference in the comment to an additional approximately one billion tonnes of waste is assumed to be an error. The proposed landfill expansion is for an additional 9.9 million tonnes over the 25 year planning period.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Table 3. Aboriginal communities comment summary table

Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation (CKSPFN)

Comment #1

CKSPFN would like the City of London (City) to inform them of any changes or expansions required for the Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to accommodate the W12A Landfill expansion.

Proponent’s response

The EA described that there are no changes or expansions required for the Greenway WWTP to accommodate the W12A Landfill expansion.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #2

There are opportunities to collect the landfill gas (LFG) and put it to more beneficial uses (i.e., energy recovery systems). Gas captured via the landfill’s horizontal collection pipes could be sent to the natural gas grid or used to generate energy on site.

landfill gas is an environmental concern that releases greenhouse gases. A condition of approval should be that if the expansion is approved, the City consider uses of LFG over flaring.

The City should provide information on all potential beneficial uses that can be explored / screened as alternative methods, together with details on why each of these alternative methods has been screened out leaving flaring as the preferred alternative for utilizing LFG.

Proponent’s response

Since 2010 the City has explored opportunities and options for utilization of the landfill gas generated and collected at the existing W12A Landfill site. A summary of these activities is provided on the below table. The opportunity with FortisBC Energy for an RNG facility at the W12A Landfill site is active, and the City proposes to continue this feasibility assessment outside of the EA. The continued collection (with the installation of horizontal collectors during landfilling) of landfill gas from the expansion and flaring will limit the release of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) from the landfill, which is the key objective as set out in Ontario Regulation 232/98: Landfill Standards and was an important component of the assessment of impacts from the expansion on the atmosphere, as well as part of the assessment of climate change effects. As such, there is no need for an EA condition that the City consider utilization options rather than flaring the gas.

Status

The ministry is considering a Condition of Approval that would require the City to re-evaluate the viability of landfill gas utilization four years after EA approval and every four years thereafter, and as part of the first submission for the re-evaluation, requiring the proponent to submit with it, a per reviewed report for landfill gas recovery and utilization.

Comment #3

The proposed W12A Landfill Expansion will expand the service area to include the service of other municipalities including Elgin County, Middlesex County, Huron County, Lambton County and Perth County. CKSPFNs reserve community is inside Lambton County.

The EA does not outline the cumulative effects of each of these municipalities shifting their waste streams to the landfill expansion. The City should examine the impacts of shifting these municipal waste streams.

CKSPFN would benefit from a meeting with the City for an assessment of CKSPFNs current waste management and recycling system with respect to potential waste management and recycling service improvements that might be available if the landfill expansion is approved.

Should the project be approved, CKSPFN requests dialogue with the City for potential waste management service improvement opportunities for CKSPFNs reserve community members and businesses.

Proponent’s response

The City is proposing to obtain MECP approval to add this regional service area to the current service area for the W12A Landfill site, such that in future the W12A Landfill would be available as an alternative residual waste disposal site for those responsible for waste management within the regional service area. It is not known at the time of preparation of the EA if any, some or all of the waste generators within the regional service area may pursue this avenue for disposal of their residual waste. The allocation for waste disposal for the regional service area is only 5% of the total residual waste to be disposed during the 25 year planning period. The City considers it not appropriate to undertake an assessment of the cumulative effects if these municipalities were to send their residual waste to the W12A Landfill site.

The CKSPFN are located within the geographical area that comprises the regional service area and are eligible to use the W12A Landfill if the expansion is approved (upon further discussion). The City would be pleased to discuss this with the CKSPFN.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent considered the need for the project as part of the EA.

Comment #4

The EA does not provide sufficient information on the proposed end use or closure plan for the facility, following the 25-year planning period. The City should indicate their long-term plans for the landfill site after closure, including cumulative effects.

There is the potential for ecological rehabilitation of the site. CKSPFN should be given an opportunity to participate in restoration of the site, post-closure.

More information should be given on post landfill closure rehabilitation activities such as the addition of topsoil and vegetation which would give opportunity to transform the site beyond its past use.

Proponent’s response

The EA provides an overview of the design of the final landfill cover, including the type of cover and considerations for the vegetation planting on the cover. The City is aware of the importance of the use of native species and control of invasive species.

The EA does assess potential impacts during the closure and post-closure period, and these matters are described at an appropriate level of detail. As part of the amended ECA for the expanded landfill site, the City will be required to prepare a detailed closure and end use plan for the landfill site two years in advance of the site capacity being reached and submit it for MECP review and approval.

Although detailed planning of W12A Landfill closure is in the future, the City would have CKSPFN participation.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #5

A condition of approval should be to report annually on the WWTP capacity for the landfill, along with the temporary leachate storage. Should the landfill expansion be approved, CKSPFN should be provided with annual reports and have membership opportunities in any committees that may be created for the operating landfill expansion.

Proponent’s response

The City’s planning for the capacity of the Greenway WWTP has considered that it will receive leachate from the W12A Landfill site for treatment, in addition to sewage from the City. In addition, the City controls the routing of sewage for treatment at the Greenway WWTP and can therefore ensure that there is treatment capacity reserved for the W12A Landfill leachate. As such, there is no need to include an assessment of WWTP treatment capacity in the annual operations and monitoring report for the landfill.

It is noted that the City prepares an annual report on the WWTP operations, which includes the usage of the plant compared to its design capacity. The City also will be preparing an annual report on the operation of the landfill and can be provided to CKSPFN.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #6

If temporary leachate storage on the landfill site is installed, the City should confirm that the temporary storage has a proper cover and liner to ensure no additional leachate is created or discharged into watercourses/groundwater.

Major storm events are predicted to increase with climate change, and the City should consider more long-term solutions for excess leachate storage with the landfill expansion.

Proponent’s response

As described in the EA, the temporary leachate storage will be provided in an enclosed below ground storage chamber/tank and in a small portion of the drainage layer below the Phase 2 landfill area. There will not be leakage or discharge to groundwater or surface water courses. Leachate storage design will consider potential implications of climate change.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #7

The City should ensure that the EA’s mitigation measures are implemented, and upgrades are made to the site to minimize groundwater contaminants. It is not sufficient to consider these mitigation measures, as water wells in the area rely on underlying aquifers for their water supply.

Proponent’s response

The City has committed to design and implement the mound control mitigation measures in the Phase 1 area. In addition, there is an ongoing groundwater monitoring program and a commitment to install additional shallow monitoring wells to assess the performance of the perimeter leachate collection system.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the City’s commitment for on-going groundwater monitoring.

Comment #8

Any impacts to Species at Risk (SAR), or their habitat, should be avoided. Stating that impacts may be avoided is not enough, and the City should be more specific in its plans to protect these species. Habitat compensation plans should be created for the impacted SAR, and ongoing monitoring of these species should be a condition of approval. CKSPFN requests to be provided with any species-specific protection/ monitoring reports.

Proponent’s response

Any vertical expansion of the landfill will result in removal of habitat for grassland birds. The EA acknowledges this as an impact and the City has committed to obtaining the required permits. The process for obtaining the required permits from MECP that include habitat compensation are described in the EA. Ongoing monitoring of the compensating habitat will be a requirement of the permit, as will reporting on the performance of the habitat. The habitat will be progressively removed as the expansion is developed and will be reinstated in full as areas of the landfill receive their final cover.

The City will provide the CKSPFN a copy of the habitat compensation monitoring reports.

Status

The ministry is considering a Condition of Approval that would require the City to provide the City’s habitat compensation reports to interested Indigenous communities for review and comment before they are finalized

Comment #9

The City should make it priority that any work required in the southeastern corner be completed outside of the breeding bird window.

Proponent’s response

The comment reflects the City’s intent, as per the commitment in the EA.

Status

The ministry is considering a Condition of Approval that would require the City to provide the City’s habitat compensation reports to interested Indigenous communities for review and comment before they are finalized.

Comment #10

CKSPFN would like to see plans and reporting on avoidance of the White Oak 1 site for construction, operation and closure of the site.

Proponent’s response

The City will provide the CKSPFN with the proposed avoidance plan/protocol.

Status

The ministry is considering a Condition of Approval that would require the City to provide the City’s habitat compensation reports to interested Indigenous communities for review and comment before they are finalized

Comment #11

It is not accurate to state that the period from now through 2048 will be too short to significantly see the impacts of climate change on the landfill. Changes in precipitation, temperature, and significant weather events are already being seen, and the landfill should ensure that climate change is more seriously considered in long-term site planning.

The proponent should be required to conduct an assessment of the impacts of climate change and significant weather events during construction, operations and closure phases.

Proponent’s response

An assessment of the effects of climate change on the landfill and the effects of the landfill on climate change was provided in the EA. This assessment relates to the operations and post-closure phases; effects of climate change during the construction phase can be incorporated into the planning and design for the specific items to be progressively constructed over the 25 year expansion period. The potential effects of climate change on the proposed stormwater management system design due to increased precipitation have already been assessed as part of the EA, and will be taken into account in design of leachate management components.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proponent assessed the potential impacts of climate change on the project as part of the EA.

Comment #12

GHG levels generated by the landfill peaking in 2049 indicates that the LFG output will continue to increase over time until closure. The impacts of climate change already facing the Earth suggest that this plan is not adequate in controlling emissions from the landfill.

Proponent’s response

It is typical that the generation of gas due to biodegradation of the organic materials increases as the amount of waste disposed increases, and the gas production then declines. The projected gas generation for the W12A Landfill is typical of what happens for all landfills and does not reflect any inadequacy in the proposed approach to design and operation of the expansion and the gas collection/control system. It is noted that the gas generation projections are conservative in that they use the MECP-accepted approach to gas generation that does not account for the reduction in gas generation that will occur due to the proposed diversion of organics from disposal that is being implemented by the City as the main component of its updated resource recovery strategy.

Status

The ministry is considering a Condition of Approval that would require the City to re-evaluate the viability of landfill gas utilization four years after EA approval and every four years thereafter, and as part of the first submission for the re-evaluation, requiring the proponent to submit with it, a per reviewed report for landfill gas recovery and utilization.

Comment #13

The City should explain why they did not reach out to First Nations in the wider region to determine their interest in being included in the service are of the W12A Landfill, and why First Nations are not considered to be part of the proposed regional service area.

Proponent’s response

The CKSPFN are located within the geographical area that comprises the regional service area, and as such are eligible to use the W12A Landfill if the expansion is approved and upon further discussion and negotiation, the same as will be done with any interested municipalities. The City would be pleased to discuss this with the CKSPFN.

The City reached out to the CKSPFN multiple times during the EA to engage in consultation. The comments received on the November 2021 Proposed EA are the first comments received from CKSPFN on this project.

The consultation records show that the City reached out to the CKSPFN during the EA. If there has been a misunderstanding with the wider service area being proposed, the City can forward more specific information to CKSPFN to ensure that it is recognized that CKSPFN is included.

Status

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #14

Summary of Recommended Conditions of Approval:

• The City should establish a liaison committee for construction, operations and closure, and include opportunity for interested First Nation government representatives to participate, and opportunities to receive, review and comment on annual reports.
• The proponent should be required to report annually on the WWTP capacity for the landfill, along with the temporary leachate storage.
• Habitat compensation plans based on both habitat area and function should be created for the SAR directly impacted by the landfill, and ongoing monitoring of these species should be a condition of approval. The CKSPFN requests that they are provided with any species-specific protection/monitoring reports.
• The City should be required to create specific plans and reporting on avoidance of the White Oak 1 site for construction, operation and closure of the site, and share those with interested parties, including First Nations, for review and comment.
• The proponent should be required to investigate uses of landfill gas output through an alternative methods screening approach that compares beneficial uses to the less favourable option of flaring, which has notable climate impacts.
• The City should be required to document the regional benefits of the landfill expansion, including benefits to First Nations, for expanding waste stream collection across the region, including but not limited to the municipalities of Elgin County, Middlesex County, Huron County, Lambton County and Perth County. Considerations should include updated assessments of impacts on waste diversion rates outside the City, economic impacts to governments other than the City, including First Nation governments, and sub-regional impacts associated with waste management facilities that will see reduced volumes or closure, and sub-regional impacts associated with establishing new waste transfer facilities.
• The City should be required to conduct an assessment of the impacts of climate change and significant weather events during construction, operations, and closure phases under all possible Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs).

Proponent’s response

In the City’s opinion, these recommended conditions of approval have already been adequately addressed in the EA.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Chippewas of the Thames First Nation (COTTFN)

Comment #1

Require Indigenous Consultation Plan, including consultation through the life cycle of the project and involvement in any RNG planning.

Proponent’s response

The City commits to meeting at least twice each year with COTTFN staff to discuss operations, programs and projects at the W12A Landfill, including any RNG planning.

Status

The ministry is considering a Condition of Approval that would require the City to establish a landfill operating committee for Indigenous community participation.

Comment #2

Require the City to apply its Climate Lens Process to options for landfill gas recovery and utilization and get that work peer reviewed by Q3 of 2022. Report back to MECP and COTTFN with results.

Proponent’s response

The City commits to apply its Climate Lens Process to options for landfill gas recovery and utilization and get that work peer reviewed by Q3 of 2022. The City will report back to COTTFN with the findings of this work. This assessment is independent of the EA.

(Status as of July 18, 2022 – the internal work on the Climate lens Process is nearing completion by the City. Additional work is being completed on residential organics to tie in the upcoming Green Bin program).

Status

The ministry is considering a Condition of Approval that would require the City to re-evaluate the viability of landfill gas utilization four years after EA approval and every four years thereafter, and as part of the first submission for the re-evaluation, requiring the proponent to submit with it, a per reviewed report for landfill gas recovery and utilization.

Comment #3

Require firm timelines and compliance reporting on implementing the Green Bin program citywide and achieving 60% waste diversion by 2025.

Proponent’s response

The City agrees with this request, and it is consistent with its practices. Previous timelines have required adjustments as outlined below.

Information on the City’s waste diversion initiatives, including how it proposes to reach a residential diversion rate of 60%, is documented in the EA.

The key program to reach 60% waste diversion is implementation of a Green Bin program, which has been approved and funded by Council. The City is currently waiting for the delivery of new collection trucks to be able to begin implementation of the program (i.e., significant supply chain issues have delayed the build and delivery dates). It is in the City’s interest to achieve 60% residential diversion at the earliest possible date for various reasons, including that 25-year planning for residual waste disposal airspace at the W12A Landfill site has been based on achieving 60% diversion by the end of 2022.

Numerous challenges have arisen during the pandemic that have required adjustments to timelines. However, there has been no change in Council’s commitment and budget to the 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan including the Green Bin program. The most recent public update through Committee and Council occurred on June 21, 2022.

Current details from the City’s truck manufacture suggest vehicles will be available in mid-to late 2023. More details are expected in the fall of 2022 on the final build dates for the vehicles which will permit the City to establish firm timeline for implementation.

The City reports annually on the waste diversion rate achieved to:

• Committee/Council
• the province through Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority (RPRA)
• the Municipal Benchmarking Network Canada

In addition, in April 2022 Municipal Council approved the Climate Emergency Action Plan which will also include additional opportunities for public reporting on items dealing with waste management and greenhouse gas reduction.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #4

Require assessment of potential use of collected landfill gas in the project’s Environmental Compliance Approval.

Proponent’s response

Municipal Council has approved going to the marketplace to determine the feasibility of producing RNG.

The City has investigated and attempted numerous landfill gas utilization projects (see table below). This work suggests:

• direct utilization and using landfill to generate electrical power is not viable at this time
• RNG may be viable and is the opportunity that is currently being examined by the City

The City has recently re-activated its project regarding the potential creation of RNG. It was delayed during the pandemic. The next step is to finalize the term sheet (September 2022) with the purchaser of RNG in order that the marketplace can be engaged in a request for proposal for an RNG facility.

The City will voluntarily continue to assess opportunities to utilize the collected landfill gas.

Status

The ministry is considering a Condition of Approval that would require the City to re-evaluate the viability of landfill gas utilization four years after EA approval and every four years thereafter, and as part of the first submission for the re-evaluation, requiring the proponent to submit with it, a per reviewed report for landfill gas recovery and utilization.

Comment #5

Require the City to solidify RNG plans within two years of approval.

Proponent’s response

The City is working towards developing a RNG facility at the landfill to utilize the captured landfill gas. These are large, expensive, and complex projects. These also require the involvement of and agreements with other organizations (for example, pipeline company, purchaser of RNG, RNG facility process designer/constructor/operator, various regulatory agencies). Supply chain issues in the equipment and construction industry are also emerging.

For these reasons, a definitive timeline to solidify RNG plans is not possible at this time. A timeline will be a required item requested as part of the Request for Proposals to design, build and operate an RNG facility at the W12A Landfill.

Status

The ministry is considering a Condition of Approval that would require the City to re-evaluate the viability of landfill gas utilization four years after EA approval and every four years thereafter, and as part of the first submission for the re-evaluation, requiring the proponent to submit with it, a per reviewed report for landfill gas recovery and utilization.

Comment #6

Ensure that assessments of proposed stormwater management and leachate collection and treatment systems for the expanded landfill have the resiliency to withstand impacts from weather events of increased frequency and intensity as a result of climate change.

Proponent’s response

The stormwater ponds were assessed to predict conditions during the 1:250 year return period storm event and the Regional Design storm (Hurricane Hazel) to evaluate potential climate change effects.

The City has committed in the EA to include the possibility of increased leachate generation from climate change into the design of:

• the proposed replacement perimeter LCS for the Phase 1 area of the landfill
• the proposed system of temporary leachate storage on the W12A Landfill site during storm events of significant magnitude that could result in discharge of the mixed leachate/sewage to Dingman Creek or the Thames River if the WWTP is in a by-pass situation temporarily
• the replacement for the main leachate pump station on the W12A Landfill site

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #7

Ensure that assessments of landfill vulnerability to side slope failure take into account projected extreme weather events and identify appropriate mitigation and contingency measures to address such a failure.

Proponent’s response

A geotechnical assessment was completed on the proposed landfill expansion. The assessment concluded that the proposed 4H:1V landfill side slopes have an acceptable factor of safety in terms of slope stability.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response.

Comment #8

Summary of Recommended Conditions of Approval:

1. COTTFN participation in an operating committee for the landfill, meeting twice a year to discuss landfill operations, programs, and projects.
2. Application of the Climate Lens Process for landfill gas recovery and a peer review.
3. An assessment of landfill gas utilization within four years of the EAs date of approval (and four years thereafter) if a beneficial use of landfill gas has not been implemented.

Proponent’s response

The City held a meeting with COTTFN on August 8, 2022, to discuss the City’s responses to COTTFNs April 1, 2022 comments on the final EA, and potential language for the EAs conditions of approval. The City does not have any concerns with COTTFNs proposed Conditions of Approval for the EA.

Status

COTTFN wrote to the ministry on September 1, 2022, informing the ministry that they agreed with the City’s suggested language for the EA conditions of approval. The ministry is satisfied with the response.