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. The deadline for the completion of the Ministry Review was February 8, 2013. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Ministry Review documents the Ministry’s evaluation of the Environmental Assessment and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM)

What

Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes:

  • An expansion of the existing landfill site through the development of a new landfill footprint on lands owned or optioned by WM
  • WM is seeking approval for a total capacity of 6.5 million cubic metres of residual solid, non-hazardous waste (including final cover)

When

EA submitted: September 14, 2012
Comment period: September 14–November 2, 2012
Amended EA submitted: January 21, 2013
Ministry review comment period: February 22, 2013–March 29, 2013

Where

The proposed new landfill footprint is located in the City of Ottawa immediately adjacent to WM’s existing closed landfill site northwest of the intersection of Highway 417 and Carp Road. The southrn half of the footprint is on WM-owned lands and the northrn half is on lands that WM has options to purchase. The total footprint area of the proposed new landfill is 37.8 hectares (ha).

Why

WM is seeking to provide additional waste disposal capacity of solid non-hazardous waste in order to continue its commercial operations and support its business following the closure of the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (WMF). The proposed new landfill is one component of the West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC) which will be an integrated waste management facility that will include:

  • Residential diversion facility
  • Materials recycling facility
  • Organics processing facility
  • Construction and demolition facility
  • Electronic waste handling facility

Conclusions

The ministry Review concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and contained sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

Environmental assessment process

Environmental assessment (EA) is a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general contents for the preparation of an EA, as well as the ministry’s evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how 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 interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

Preparing an EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment (ministry) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On November 25, 2010, the Minister approved the amended ToR for a focussed EA on the study of a new landfill directly adjacent to WM’s closed Ottawa WMF. The ToR amendments included new commitments to carry out an assessment of alternative methods of leachate treatment, clarification that the EA would include a description of and rationale for the undertaking, and it also included a requirement for the proponent to provide funding for the City to carry out a peer review of the EA.

The ToR discussed WM’s business case or justification for proceeding with a new landfill alternative at the Ottawa WMF site. At the ToR stage WM considered various “alternatives to” including:

  • do nothing
  • export
  • an energy from waste facility
  • a new site location
  • and other existing landfill sites and facilities

The ToR outlines the process WM would follow to assess alternative methods for carrying out the proposed undertaking; to assess environmental effects and provide mitigation measures and to consult with the public, government agencies and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the EA.

1.2 Environmental assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and approval.

On September 14, 2012, WM submitted its EA titled West Carleton Environmental Centre New Landfill Footprint Environmental Assessment. WM is seeking approval for 6.5 million cubic metres in additional waste disposal capacity for solid non-hazardous waste in the province of Ontario. The EA comment period ended on November 2, 2012. Based on comments received during the seven-week comment period, WM revised its EA and submitted an Amended EA on January 21, 2013.

The EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. The public and Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the EA undertaking.

Ministry review

The EAA, known simply as the Ministry Review (Review). The Review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to document the ministry’s findings about whether or not the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the EAA and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

The Review outlines whether the information contained 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 the public, agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister of the Environment considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the EA decision making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the five-week Review comment period and is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered by WM. During the Review comment period, anyone may submit comments on the Amended EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone may request that the Minister refer the Amended EA, or any matter relating to the Amended EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the Amended EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing may only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A Notice of Completion of the Review has been published in the following local newspapers indicating that the Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period:

  • Ottawa Citizen
  • Ottawa Sun
  • Le Droit
  • Stittsville News
  • Kanata Kourier-Standard
  • West Carleton Weekender

Copies of the Review and the Amended EA have been placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and identified Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period have also received copies of the Review.

The proposed undertaking

Background

WM owns and previously operated the Ottawa WMF located in the City of Ottawa near the intersection of Carp Road and Highway 417. The existing Ottawa WMF, is defined in Provisional Certificate of Approval A461002 as the:

  • Entire waste disposal site, including the buffer lands, located on Lots 3 and 4, Concession 3, in the former Township of Huntley, formerly in the Township of West Carleton, now the City of Ottawa
  • The contaminant attenuation zone (CAZ), including portions of 2301, 2330, 2104, 2326 and 2300 Carp Road, located on Part of Lot 4, Concession II, Part of Lot 3, Concession 2, and Part of Lot 2, Concession II, in the former Township of Huntley, formerly in the Township of West Carleton, now in the City of Ottawa

The existing Ottawa WMF reached its approved capacity of 8,744,069 cubic metres and was closed in September 2011. WM is a contract service provider for the collection, processing and marketing of recyclable materials plus the disposal of any residual wastes not recycled. WM provides this broad range of integrated waste management services through a network of programs and facilities throughout Ontario. These services are provided to both the public and private sectors within the City of Ottawa and Eastern Ontario. Previously, WM reserved between 75-90% of the capacity of the Ottawa WMF for waste generated within the City of Ottawa, including residential wastes and wastes from about 7,500 industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) customers.

Accounting for further growth, diversion, and the role of existing waste disposal facilities, WM determined there was a need for disposal capacity for residual wastes generated within the City of Ottawa and surrounding communities. Given the closure of the Ottawa WMF in September 2011, the need for disposal of residential and IC&I waste within the area serviced by the Ottawa WMF, and WM’s intention to continue its business operations in the City, the company determined that there is a need to develop additional waste disposal capacity.

It is the company’s intention to continue to provide waste disposal services and so it has undertaken the development of an EA for a new landfill footprint. The new landfill footprint is part of a larger development called the West Carleton Environmental Centre which includes diversion facilities not subject to the EAA.

Description of the proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is for the development of a new landfill footprint directly adjacent to WM’s existing closed waste fill area in the City of Ottawa. Specifically, WM is seeking approval for:

  • A total of 6,500,000 m3 in landfill capacity of solid non-hazardous waste, including final cover
  • Service area that covers the province of Ontario, but will primarily serve IC&I and residential waste generators from the City of Ottawa and the Good Neighbour Zone (GNZ), which includes surrounding communities mainly within Lanark County

The annual disposal rate is estimated to be 400,000 tonnes per year, with an additional 150,000 tonnes per year of daily and interim cover. The estimated site life of the proposed new landfill footprint will be approximately 10 years. The proposed landfill will be an engineered landfill designed to meet the requirements of O. Reg. 232/98 (“Landfilling Sites”) under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA).

The purpose of the undertaking proposed by WM is to provide residual waste disposal capacity (after diversion) for solid non-hazardous waste from the residential (30%) and IC&I (70%) sectors in the form of a new landfill footprint. This will enable WM to continue commercial operations and support its business in Ottawa following the closure of the company’s Ottawa WMF in September 2011.

The new proposed landfill footprint will be located adjacent to the existing landfill footprint on parts of Lots 4 and 5, Concession 2. The southrn half of the footprint is on WM-owned lands and the northrn half is on lands that WM has options to purchase. Buffers of 100 metres (m) or greater will be maintained between the limits of the footprint and the surrounding property boundaries. An approximate 45 to 50 m buffer will be also maintained between the toe of slope of the existing and new landfill footprints to allow for a new waste haul road to the new landfill footprint and for maintenance and monitoring access.

The new proposed landfill footprint will be a rectangular landform with a maximum elevation of 156 metres above sea level (mASL). This elevation is approximately 31 m above the surrounding existing grade. The maximum elevation of the existing closed Ottawa WMF landfill is approximately 172 mASL or approximately 47 m above the surrounding existing grade.

The total proposed footprint area of the proposed new landfill is 37.8 ha. The site entrance for the proposed new landfill will be located off Carp Road approximately 640 m south of Richardson Side Road. The length of the entrance roadway leading to the scale facility is proposed to be approximately 400 metres and is proposed to incorporate several inbound lanes. WM has indicated that this configuration will provide ample truck queuing theus eliminating potential for queuing on Carp Road. A left hand turn lane from the northbound Carp Road is also proposed at the site entrance to minimize any traffic impacts on Carp Road. Leachate collected from the landfill will be pretreated and discharged to the City of Ottawa sanitary sewer system in conjunction with disposal through irrigation of trees on-site. The proposed new landfill will also include the development of three new stormwater management ponds.

The nearest sensitive receptors are approximately 450 m (residence) and 500 m (commercial business) from the proposed new landfill footprint. The site (including the closed Ottawa WMF) currently has a number of zoning designations on it, including Rural Heavy Industrial, Mineral Extraction and Rural General Industrial. If the proposed undertaking is approved, a zoning by-law amendment will be required.

If EAA approval is granted, WM will be required to complete the proposed undertaking in accordance with the Amended EA and any conditions of approval. In addition, WM must still obtain all other legislative approvals required for the undertaking.

Figure 1: Site

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of this figure.

Figure 2: Proposed landfill footprint

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of this figure.

Results of the ministry review

The Review provides the analysis of the EA. The Review is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the decision making process, refer to the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

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 requirements of the ToR have been met. Ministry staff noted that there were commitments made in the approved ToR that were not adequately met in the EA that was submitted on September 14, 2012. In response to the concerns raised, WM amended its EA to ensure it met the requirements of the approved ToR. The Amended EA was submitted to the ministry on January 23, 2013 and was posted to WM’s website on February 22, 2013. The ministry has reviewed the revisions and concludes that the Amended EA followed the framework set out in the approved ToR, addressed the commitments made in the ToR, and demonstrated how the requirements of the EAA were met.

Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR requirements have been addressed in the Amended EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-submission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be undertaken prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR. Several methods of consultation were used by WM throughout the EA process and included Public Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings, meetings with the GRT, public workshops, public open houses, stakeholder roundtable discussions, technical sessions, newsletters, and maintaining and updating a project website. The intent of the consultation plan was to provide information on the project, obtain input, and address comments.

The ministry is satisfied that the level of consultation undertaken with the public and GRT was appropriate for this proposed undertaking. This included providing an opportunity to government reviewers and other key stakeholders to provide comments on a draft version of the EA prior to submission.

The Amended EA adequately describes the consultation that was undertaken and the outcomes of the various consultation activities/events.

Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during the seven-week EA comment period. The GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR have been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to WM for a response. Summaries of all comments received along with the proponent’s responses are included in Tables 1 and 2. Copies of the GRT’s submissions are also available in Appendix B.

Government Review Team

Consultation with the GRT was conducted throughout the EA process. This included pre-submission discussions, technical meetings with ministry staff and key members of the GRT and through providing an opportunity to review of the draft EA. Many of the comments provided to WM from the GRT were incorporated into the final EA. A summary of the comments provided on the draft EA and WM’s responses can be found in Supporting Document #6 of the Amended EA—Record of Consultation.

Members of the GRT were provided copies of the September 14, 2012 EA for their review during the seven-week comment period. All comments received by the ministry were forwarded to WM for a response. A summary the comments and WM’s responses can be found in Table 1 of this Review.

Comments were received by the ministries of Environment (MOE), Natural Resources (MNR), and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA); the City of Ottawa; the Town of Smith Falls; the Mississauga Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) as well as by federal agencies such as Transport Canada (TC); Environment Canada (EC); and, health Canada (HC). The ministries of Energy, Transportation, Tourism, Culture and Sport; and, Hydro One Networks had no further comments or concerns with the proposal.

Provincial agencies

MOE reviewers indicated that additional information would be required as part of the application for an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) including the development of a Design and Operation report; an environmental monitoring program for groundwater, surface water, leachate monitoring and gas vapour monitoring; and additional information to support the leachate treatment option. A sediment and erosion control plan will also be required as part of the ECA application.

although MOE reviewers did not identify any outstanding concerns related to consultation, it should be noted that additional detail in the consultation record would have been helpful to understand more fully how comments were addressed in the EA. On the other hand, WM appears to have been responsive to the public’s request and scheduled additional meetings and outreach when requested.

The MNR indicated support for the preferred alternative but requested more information on species at risk under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) in relation to potential impacts on the Barn Swallow bird colony and the Flooded Jellyskin natural habitat. WM has been in contact with the MNR and has been providing the information as requested. To date a permit under the ESA has not been identified for this project.

The OMAFRA concurred with the selection of the preferred alternative, provided clarifications about soil classifications and encouraged mitigation that reduces impacts on surrounding agricultural operations as highlighted in Section 8.1.13 of the EA.

Federal government agencies

TC indicated an interest in this landfill site as it is located near an airport (4.5 kilometres south of the Ottawa/Carp regional airport). As such, it recommended a bird hazard management plan be prepared. WM prepared an Integrated Gull Management Plan and TC has indicated that they have reviewed the plan and are satisfied with the contents of the plan. Other comments reference TC’s responsibilities under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and Railway Safety Act.

EC provided comments about migratory birds, particularly in relation to the potential displacement of a Bank Swallow colony on-site for which they have recommended a Mitigation, Compensation and Restoration Plan. EC has requested that the Plan include consultation and agreement with them on the development of this Plan. WM has committed to develop a plan to address the potential displacement of the Bank Swallow colong in consultation with EC.

HC requested clarifications related to the air quality and surface and groundwater assessment work. WM responded and provided information in order to clarify the the assessment work.

Local agencies

The City of Ottawa identified a number of concerns including:

  • odour control
  • modeling of upset conditions
  • project amendment process
  • property value protection plan
  • waste diversion
  • service area
  • traffic impacts/improvements
  • site plan control
  • public liaison committee membership and processes
  • reporting mechanisms for monitoring
  • site capacity
  • need for new leachate agreement
  • financial capacity of the company

The MVCA had no significant concerns with the proposal and provided advice regarding potential permitting requirements.

The Town of Smith Falls requested to be included in the service area for the landfill.

Public consultation

The proponent described the consultation process it undertook in Chapter 7 of the EA and Supporting Document 6. WM used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public including:

  • 12 Project Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings
  • five public Open Houses
  • three workshops
  • stakeholder roundtable discussions
  • technical sessions
  • Public Information Centres
  • newsletters
  • a project website
  • an on-site project office

The PAC was developed during the ToR stage and maintained throughout the development of the EA. The PAC reviewed and provided comments on documents prepared by WM during the development of the EA. The PAC is comprised of two members from the Carp Landfill Community Liaison Committee, five west-end City of Ottawa Councillors, and two WM employees. In total, there were 12 PAC meetings held during the development of the EA. WM met with the PAC at each stage of the EA process to discuss the results of consultation activities and any public comments received.

Throughout the development of the EA, WM held five Open Houses. WM hosted three four-hour sessions in Carp, Kanata, and Stittsville for each Open House. An additional two Open House sessions were held on different dates and at different locations to accommodate individuals unable to attend the three scheduled Open Houses. Project Team members were in attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussions. Display boards and information were made available in English and French at each session. The approved ToR and draft work plans were also made available for public review and comment.

Notifications were provided in advance for each public information session. Invitations were sent to GRT members, potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities, interested members of the public and local Councillors via direct mail or e-mail. Invitations were also mailed in advance to approximately 14,000 residents in Stittsville, West Carleton, and West Kanata. As required by the approved ToR, WM published its Notices of Commencement and Submission of the EA in the local newspapers and updated its website at various points during the development of the EA to inform the public on upcoming public information sessions. The Notice of Commencement and Open House #1 notification was placed in local newspapers (e.g. Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Sun, Le Droit, Stittsville News, Kanata Kourier-Standard, and West Carleton Weekender) and in online publications (e.g. EMC Kanata, EMC Stittsville, and EMC West Carleton) during the week of January 5 to 12, 2011. The distribution list was reduced for subsequent notifications to include the Stittsville News, Kanata Kourier-Standard, West Carleton Review, EMA Kanata, EMC Stittsville, and EMC West Carleton. A contact database was maintained throughout the EA study to contact interested public and key stakeholders of study issues and events. The contact database was updated after each public information session to include individuals that signed-in with their contact information on the distribution list.

Between scheduled Open Houses, additional public information sessions were held in the form of workshops, roundtable discussions, and technical sessions. Three workshops were held and additional roundtable discussions were held on different dates to accommodate individuals who could not attend the workshops. Discussions on the new landfill footprint, proposed evaluation criteria and methodology, evaluation of alternative landfill footprints, selection of the preferred alternative, and leachate treatment alternatives were discussed. WM and AECOM staff were in attendance to answer questions and lead discussions. WM made additional commitments in light of the concerns raised during the stakeholder roundtable discussion regarding the provision of additional Technical Sessions on specific issues and the availability of documents. As per the approved ToR, three special technical sessions were held regarding air, groundwater, and property values. Specialized consultants and experts were in attendance to address concerns and lead discussions. Documents were made available on the project website and by appointment at WM offices.

WM also made copies of the Draft EA and its supporting documents available from March 2, 2012 to April 27, 2012 to members of the public. This provided an eight-week comment period for anyone interested in submitting comments directly to WM for its consideration as it finalized the EA.

Following formal submission the EA, comments were received from 119 members of the public including detailed comments prepared by Fogler, Rubinoff, LLP and XCG Consultants Ltd. on behalf of the Richardson Corridor Community Association. Comments were also received from one local business. Five letters of support were received by the ministry. Concerns from the public were related to odour control, property values, waste diversion, amending procedures, traffic, bird impacts on the airport, site plan control, future consultation with stakeholders, reporting mechanisms, leachate treatment, site capacity, potential for groundwater contamination, EA process issues (consultation and alternatives, compliance with ToR and MOE codes of practice), health concerns, landfill gas/odour, land use issues, site location, future expansion, community benefits, and cumulative effects. WM responded to the concerns and indicated that commitments regarding odour, air emissions, leachate, property values, and traffic for the proposed expansion include:

  • Use of a landfill gas collection system as per the approved Environmental Monitoring Plan
  • Groundwater monitoring requirements
  • Use of a leachate collection system
  • Use of a composite double-liner system
  • A series of wells to prevent movement beyond the site boundaries
  • Post-closure care
  • Contaminant Attenuation Zones
  • Implementation of a Property Value Protection Plan (PVPP)
  • Ongoing communication with the City of Ottawa regarding transportation matters (increased traffic, safety)

WM will also continue to support the Carp Landfill Community Liaison Committee and undertake consultation activities as part of WM’s commitments for ongoing consultation and the regulatory approvals process. Detailed comments raised by the public and the proponent’s responses are documented in Table 2 of this Review.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to the requirement in the EAA that interested persons be consulted, the Crown and the proponent must also turn their minds to consultation with Aboriginal communities who may have aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the proposed undertaking. The Crown has a duty to consult where a contemplated action by the Crown may adversely affect Aboriginal or treaty rights. The Crown may delegate procedural aspects of the duty to the proponent.

As a result, a list of Aboriginal communities who may have aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the proposed undertaking or that may otherwise be interested in the proposed undertaking was developed and those communities were provided with information on the EA throughout the process. Information was provided to:

  • Algonquins of Ontario
  • Mohawk Council of Akwesasne

Information was also provided to:

  • Métis Nation of Ontario
  • Métis National Council

Ontario’s Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs and northrn Development Canada were contacted with respect to the development of the list of communities.

Through direct communication with a representative from the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, WM determined that the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne should be removed from the consultation list.

Since the proposed undertaking does not trigger a federal EA, WM determined, through direct communication with a representative from the Métis National Council that its involvement was unwarranted but continued to provide the Métis Nation of Ontario information and opportunities to comment as the EA was developed.

During the preparation of the EA, the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario were kept informed on the progress of the EA through information emails and notices and were invited to public open houses in March and November of 2011. They also received a copy of the Draft EA on March 2, 2012 to review and provide comments on.

In March 2012, follow up contact via email was made by WM’s consultants to the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario in order to confirm receipt of the documentation and to solicit any comments or concerns. The proponent also followed up via email with the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario in April 2012 and offered to meet with them to discuss the proposed project and requested that they provide any comments on the proposed project to them. No comments were provided by the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario during the pre-submission stage. Further details of the consultation undertaken by WM can be found in Chapter 7 of the Amended EA and in Supporting Document #6—Record of Consultation.

In September 2012 the final EA was provided to the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario. The MOE followed up with the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario by email in November 2012 to solicit any comments that they had. To date no comments have been provided to MOE from any Aboriginal community.

Ministry Conclusions on the consultation program

The EAA requires that the proponent consult with all interested persons during the preparation of the EA and report on the results of that consultation. The ministry is satisfied that the proponent appropriately carried out the consultation plan that was outlined in the approved ToR.

Overall, the ministry believes that the proponent provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. Concerns raised by the public and other stakeholders were considered during the preparation of the final EA and the proponent has committed to continuing its participation on the CLC.

The Amended EA documents the consultation methods that were undertaken by WM to engage government reviewers, Aboriginal communities and members of the public during the development of the EA. The EA discusses the concerns raised and how they were addressed or will be addressed if the Amended EA is approved.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The ministry is satisfied that the consultation carried out meets the requirements of the EAA and is in accordance with the approved ToR.

3.2 EA process

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 effects of those alternatives against select criteria and then select a preferred alternative.

In general, WM followed a logical and transparent decision making process that was outlined in the Amended EA. Refer to Appendix A for the ministry’s analysis of how the Amended EA met the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR.

The evaluation of alternatives in the Amended EA consisted of:

  • Describing the problem or purpose
  • Describing and providing a rationale for the alternative methods identified in the approved ToR which included alternative landfill footprints and alternative leachate treatment options
  • Describing the environment potentially affected by each alternative within the study area described in the Amended EA
  • Predicting and evaluating environmental effects for each alternative taking into account mitigation measures (net effects)
  • Conducting a comparative evaluation, including taking into account the relative importance of the evaluation criteria which was established with input from the public and government agencies. The comparative analysis discussed advantages and disadvantages. A reasoned argument or trade off method was used to identify a preferred alternative.
  • Identifying and providing a rationale for selecting the preferred undertaking

3.2.1 Key issues

Staff from the MOE identified some concerns regarding three requirements and commitments in the approved ToR that were not clearly addressed in the EA that was initially submitted for review and a decision. The MOE raised concerns about the following commitments:

  • How advantages and disadvantages were considered in the EA?
  • How the commitment regarding the development of the PVPP was met?
  • How the effects of an extended site life had been considered in the EA?

In response to these concerns, WM provided additional information which is included in its Amended EA document. With respect to the advantages and disadvantages WM indicated that they felt the advantages and disadvantages to the environment had been addressed in Chapter 3, in Table 5-4—Comparative Evaluation Results and in Table 6-11—Summary of Predicted Net Effects on the Environment. Ministry staff were not in agreement with WM’s assertion and through further discussion, WM agreed to amend the EA. The Amended EA includes a new table, Table 6-19, which summarizes the advantages and disadvantages to the environment associated with the undertaking. This table has been added to Section 6.11 in Chapter 6 of the Final EA Report. Ministry staff are satisfied that this requirement has now been met.

With respect to the PVPP the approved ToR commits to: Details as to how the plan would work and what residences qualify will be developed in consultation with stakeholders as part of the environmental assessment. The PVPP included in the EA did not identify what residences qualify and no explanation was provided indicating why no residences were identified.

WM responded and indicated that the PVPP in the EA does not identify any qualifying residences as the net effects analysis identified no residences within potentially impacted areas. WM has further committed to, prior to the start of construction of a new landfill, reconsider this issue in the context of any new technical or non-technical developments and, if appropriate, identify and notify potential qualifying residences for the PVPP, as documented in WM’s EA commitments in Table 8-2. Should this proposed undertaking be approved, a condition of approval will be recommended to address this issue.

With respect to considering the effects of an extended service life on the environment, WM indicated that an extended service life scenario would result in less environmental effects on an annual basis, as compared to the environmental effects that would result under the ten year scenario. WM amended the EA and provided further information on the effects of an extended site life in section 6.8. Ministry staff are now satisfied that this commitment has been adequately addressed.

Public comments

The public raised a number of concerns regarding how the alternatives were assessed in the EA including the type and range of alternative methods that were examined. Some members of the public indicated that they felt other sites should have been included in the assessment along with other technologies such as incineration.

WM responded indicating that they had undertaken an analysis as part of the development of the ToR that looked at this information. The approved ToR indicated that the EA would be prepared under Section 6(2)(c) of the EAA and that it would be focused on assessing alternative landfill footprints at the Ottawa site. The ministry is satisfied that alternatives considered in the EA were consistent with what was approved in the ToR.

Some members of the public also questioned the need/opportunity for a new landfill footprint and indicated that they felt the need should be based on “societal” or “community” need. Some members of the public feel that the project is not in the public interest due to past non-compliance with respect to odour and groundwater and that it also conflicts with the surrounding land use including proposed residential growth.

WM responded indicating that they had identified the need and rationale for the project in the approved ToR. The considerations included rationale from an economic, environmental, and geopolitical perspective. Supporting documents to the approved ToR provide detailed descriptions of the market opportunity using publicly available data from municipal, provincial, and federal sources. WM described the potential environmental impacts from continued long-distance shipment of solid non-hazardous waste throughout Eastern Ontario and into the United States. WM discussed the political and business risks that are presented by cross border shipment of waste from Canada into the U.S.

With respect to past odour and groundwater issues at the former Ottawa WMF they were addressed through the implementation of mitigation measures to ensure compliance of the existing closed landfill with regulatory requirements. Finally, land use compatibility was considered through the review of municipal policies and plans related to land use in the area.

Detailed comments raised by the public and the proponent’s responses are documented in Table 2 of this Review.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decision making process.

The Amended EA contains an explanation of the problem that prompted the EA. WM considered a reasonable range of alternative methods to the undertaking and evaluated them in a defined study area that took into consideration the EAA’s broad definition of the environment.

The Amended EA provides a description of the potentially affected environment in the study area and identifies potential impacts of the alternatives. The Amended EA also includes monitoring and contingency plans to ensure any potential negative impacts of the undertaking are minimized.

The Amended EA adequately describes the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking to the environment based on the potential environmental effects.

Requirements of the EAA for consultation with the public, GRT and Aboriginal communities have been met.

The ministry is satisfied that the Amended EA was completed in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is described in section 3.1 of the Amended EA (see also section 2 of this Review) and was evaluated based on the net impacts of each alternative and the advantages and disadvantages to the environment. A broad definition of the environment was used to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed undertaking.

3.3.1 Key issues

Key issues regarding the proposed undertaking were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. A number of concerns were raised by the GRT and the public. Submissions from the GRT can be found in Appendix B of the Review. A summary of all comments, including WM’s responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 and 2 of the Review.

Groundwater protection

The City of Ottawa along with approximately 55 members of the public have raised a concern about the potential impacts on groundwater from the proposed new landfill site. The City has indicated that the proposed site is not a good location as it is located on fractured limestone that is classified as highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination and that surrounding land uses utilize well water for drinking water. The City of Ottawa has recommended that WM provide a comprehensive ground water monitoring program to include on and off- site monitoring including private wells within 3 kilometres of the landfill and that it include best Management Practices and Mitigation to handle current and future potential impacts.

WM has committed in the Amended EA to on-site and off-site monitoring. WM believes that the ground water regime is well understood and potential impacts can easily be predicted. The conclusions in the Amended EA indicate that there are no anticipated off- site effects however off- site monitoring is proposed by WM within 500 metres of the proposed landfill.

Ministry technical reviewers have no outstanding concerns with respect to how the EA addresses impacts to groundwater. A groundwater monitoring program is typically required as part of the Environmental Compliance Approvals under the EPA and includes the duration, timing and frequency of groundwater monitoring. If the proposed undertaking is approved, under the EPA annual reporting would be required to be provided to the ministry to ensure that WM is in compliance with any required groundwater monitoring program and to ensure that any issues are addressed. WM has also committed in the Amended EA to involving other stakeholders including the City of Ottawa in the review of any environmental monitoring plans required by subsequent approvals under the EPA and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). The ministry recommends a condition to ensure that WM involves relevant stakeholders during the detailed design stage and in the review of any required groundwater monitoring plans.

Odour

The City of Ottawa and approximately 80 members of the public raised concerns about impacts from odour and how the modelling for potential odour impacts was undertaken. The City has indicated that it is not satisfied with the approach taken by WM to exclude process upset conditions from the odour impact assessment studies and requested that WM model “upset conditions”. The City has indicated that it considers “upset conditions” to include temporary inoperability of the landfill gas collection system, cracks or fissures in the landfill cover, or the installation of additional landfill gas collection infrastructure which may have significant potential for generating odours and therefore an impact on areas surrounding the landfill. The City also indicated that the detailed impact assessment for odour excluded odours arising from contaminated soil stockpiles on-site for use as daily cover and the use of compost on top of the clay cover to promote vegetative growth.

The City and members of the public also have concerns that, excluding the conditions described above, the combined odour impact from site-wide operations is predicted to exceed the 1 Odour Unit/cubic metre (OU/m3) detection thereshold and the 3 OU/m3 recommended “annoyance thereshold” near the facility property line from time to time. both the City and the public are also concerned about the potential impact from odours due to past odour issues at the existing site.

WM responded and indicated that they had modeled potential odour impacts of the new landfill footprint and other WCEC facilities, per the requirements of O. Reg. 419/05 (Air Pollution—Local Air Quality) under the EPA. The model addresses duration, extent and frequency of effects, but not emergency situations (i.e. upset conditions), as these types of events are covered in the contingency measures and management of the landfill operations.

WM assumed the baseline conditions to be the existing closed landfill, which does not reflect odour levels of the former operating landfill. However, WM indicated that past odour complaint data provided context for the frequency analysis completed for the preferred option. WM also committed to prepare Contingency Plans related to atmosphere (i.e., odour, dust, noise, landfill gas) as part of the EPA approvals process and prior to construction.

Ministry technical staff reviewed the concerns raised by the City of Ottawa and the public along with WM’s response and have indicated that upset conditions are not modelled as part of an impact assessment process. Upset conditions, if and when they occur, are dealt with through the ministry’s abatement process and through WM’s contingency planning process.

It should also be noted that currently off-site odour emissions are being controlled. Intermittent off-site odours, which occur primarily on Highway 417 and the Carp Road industrial corridor, are not considered to be causing adverse effects to the residents and workers in the area. It should also be noted that there are other odour sources in this same corridor including: an asphalt facility, concrete facilities, kitchen cabinet facility, aggregate operations, a solid waste transfer/processing facility, a restaurant, a gas station, and farming operations.

In the past, off-site odours did occur and caused adverse effects to nearby residents. These odours were primarily being caused by landfill gas that was venting from the landfill mound rather than the active face where waste was being deposited. To address this issue, a final clay cap and synthetic liner was installed at the top of the landfill and numerous landfill gas wells have been advanced to extract and burn the landfill gas through the existing 3 flares or by the landfill gas to energy facility.

In addition, the landfill gas extraction system that would be installed at the onset of construction of the landfill footprint, if approved, would provide much more capture of the landfill gas than what occurred at the Ottawa WMF and therefore the odour issue that occurred previously should not be repeated. With respect to odours from daily operations of the site, these will occur but should primarily occur on-site and in close proximity to the site in the industrial corridor and can be controlled through various operational controls such as cover frequency and thickness of cover, size of operating face, and screening of odorous loads.

In light of the above analysis, the ministry has no outstanding concerns with respect to potential impacts from odour from the proposed site.

The City of Ottawa and approximately 10 members of the public are also concerned about the proposed odour enforcement mechanism provided by WM as compensation for any potential odour effects associated with the operation of the landfill. The ToR mentions the preparation of an odour enforcement mechanism which has been prepared by WM. The City and the public feel that this proposal lacks detail with respect to who it applies to; how the value of the compensation is calculated for the community donation; the timing of the results to determine that there is an adverse effect; and, that a definition is required to define an adverse effect. Some information is provided in the EA in Appendix C in this regard. It is noted that this issue is considered to be beyond any abatement which the ministry would be responsible for ensuring that the proponent addresses at an operational level to manage any potential odours at the site. As such, it is recommended that the proponent work with the City and members of the public to resolve this matter.

Site capacity and waste diversion

The City of Ottawa and approximately 65 members of the public want to ensure that any approved landfill capacity be reduced in volume commensurate with any increases in waste diversion that are achieved in the IC&I section. Also, diversion is considered to be a top priority and there are concerns that increased capacity will impede diversion initiatives.

A needs analysis carried out by WM and documented in Chapter 3 and Supporting Document 1 to the Amended EA concludes that the need for residual waste capacity will increase along with population growth as other available disposal capacity diminishes, even with continued growth in diversion rates in the IC&I sector in the City of Ottawa and surrounding area.

The ministry recommends waste diversion targets of 60% for the generators of waste for both residential and IC&I waste. This is not a regulatory requirement.

WM has indicated that the proposed landfill will accept solid non-hazardous residual waste which is waste after diversion. The waste volumes proposed assumes that the City of Ottawa will achieve a residential diversion rate of 60%. The City’s current diversion rate as described in the Amended EA is approximately 35 to 40%. The current diversion rate for IC&I waste is 17%. The Amended EA assumes a 2% average annual increase in the diversion of ICI and C&D waste.

Also as documented in the Amended EA the proposal includes the WCEC which is a facility intended to directly support and encourage diversion in the City of Ottawa and surrounding areas.

Ministry staff have reviewed the concerns raised and WM’s responses and are satisfied that WM’s proposed capacity is not unreasonable. WM has also included in its Amended EA an analysis of the potential effects of an extended site life to the environment should the annual volume not be achieved as a result of increased diversion that shows the impacts would be negligible.

Public Liaison Committee

The City of Ottawa has a number of recommendations about the formation of a Public Liaison Committee (PLC) for this landfill including invitations to various City councillors, City staff and the ministry for membership; operational aspects; the requirements for a Terms of Reference for the committee; reporting requirements including agendas, minutes and posting materials on WM’s web site; and that the PLC monitor and makes recommendations on WM’s operational issues. Currently, there is a committee called the Carp Landfill Community Liaison Committee (CLCLC) that was formed as part of the Ottawa WMF. WM has indicated that it is committed to continuing with its CLCLC or another similar body for this landfill. The ministry has standard conditions it typically imposes to address the formation of a PLC which could address this issue.

Property value protection plan

A Property Value Protection Plan (PVPP) has been prepared by WM and is provided in the Amended EA. The City of Ottawa and members of the public would like the plan to include compensation for any loss in property values related to the landfilling activities for residences within 5 kilometers of the landfill. The plan does not identify on a map the residential properties which would be subject to the plan.

WM responded indicating that the PVPP does not identify any qualifying residences as the net effects analysis identified no residences within potentially impacted areas. WM committed to reconsider this issue in the context of any new technical or non-technical developments prior to the start of construction of the new landfill footprint, and, if appropriate, identify and notify potential qualifying residences for the PVPP.

The ministry understands that the City and WM have been attempting to resolve this concern and recommends that the City and WM continue to work at resolving this issue. Should this proposed undertaking be approved, a condition of approval may be recommended to address this issue.

Traffic issues

The City of Ottawa have accepted the traffic report prepared by WM and have requested that WM contribute a proportionate share of the cost of widening Carp Road and that WM provide a merge lane for traffic exiting the Carp Road facility. WM has indicated that it is committed to working with the City to define the required road improvements and has accounted for the merge lane in the description of its undertaking in the Amended EA. While transportation improvements could have been required as part of the approvals associated with the rezoning and any required site plan approvals under the Planning Act, the ministry may recommend the inclusion of a condition to ensure that any potential effects associated with truck traffic to the site are managed appropriately.

Some members of the public (approximately 10) raised concerns about the impacts from increased traffic along Carp Road including congestion and safety. WM responded indicating that it has committed to ongoing communication with the City regarding transportation issues such as existing and future level of service and may include certain road improvements, including a merge lane for traffic exiting the facility and widening of Carp Road. The ministry is satisfied with WM’s response on this issue.

Service area

The City of Ottawa has requested that the service area for the proposed new landfill be restricted to the City of Ottawa and Lanark County. The City has also requested that contaminated soils be restricted to those generated within the City limits and Lanark County. Approximately 50 members of the public have indicated that they feel waste should only be received from the City of Ottawa and Lanark County.

WM has indicated that they proposed an Ontario-wide service area for the new landfill, based upon past operations and future business opportunities for the site. In the past, WM has made provisions with the City of Ottawa to reserve between 75% and 90% of its landfill disposal capacity at the Ottawa WMF for waste generated within the City of Ottawa and the “Good Neighbour Zone”. WM has indicated that the remaining 10% to 25% of the waste received would be largely one-time event-based waste, including non-hazardous soils from site remediation projects and non-hazardous waste from industrial processes. WM has also projected that residential and IC&I waste regularly collected from outside the City of Ottawa and Good Neighbour Zone would not generally be part of the anticipated waste stream. The proposed Ontario-wide service area is consistent with the service area permitted for the former Carp Road Landfill.

Staff from this ministry have reviewed the concerns regarding the proposed service area and, should the proposed project be approved, have no reason to limit the requested service area.

Other issues

EC has requested a condition of approval to specifically require the preparation of a mitigation, compensation and monitoring plan for the Bank Swallow community subject to review and agreement of EC. The plan is being requested in order to ensure there will be mitigation to reduce or compensate for any impacts to the bird community. The ministry agrees that the inclusion of a condition would be appropriate should the proposed project be approved.

3.3.2 Conclusion

WM has provided responses to all comments received, including those not detailed above. All comments and the proponent’s responses are located in Tables 1 and 2 of this Review.

Ministry staff are satisfied that WM has met the requirements of the ToR and EAA for the components of the Amended EA raised in section 3.3.1 above, as well as those raised in Tables 1 and 2.

The ministry is also satisfied that the proposed new landfill footprint will be designed and operated to comply with ministry’s standards and that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can be managed through the commitments made in the Amended EA, through conditions of approval, or through additional work that must be carried out by WM in support of future approval applications.

During the final review period and prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Minister about this Amended EA, conditions specific to the proposed undertaking may be proposed to ensure the environment remains protected.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis of WM’s Amended EA for a proposed new landfill footprint adjacent to its existing closed Ottawa WMF.

This Review concludes that the Amended EA complies with the requirements of the approved ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. The Amended EA has provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking.

The Review concludes that the Amended EA has assessed and evaluated alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternative methods and the proposed undertaking, and provides a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

The ministry is satisfied that WM provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, public, stakeholders, and Aboriginal communities to comment during the development of the EA. Concerns raised by the GRT and the public issues have been addressed by WM or a commitment has been made to address them through additional work that will be completed as part of future approval requirements.

If the proposed undertaking is approved under the EAA, there are several standard conditions that are included in an approval such as the requirement to conduct and report the results of compliance monitoring and to develop a protocol for responding to complaints received during all the phases of the undertaking. There may also be specific conditions imposed on this proposed undertaking if warranted.

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 Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the Amended EA and/or the Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the Amended EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed.

At the end of the Review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the Amended EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR and the requirements of the EAA and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, the Amended EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the EA and the Review comment periods and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister may 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 Amended EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire Amended EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, WM will still require other approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 9.0 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

  • Approval under section 20.2 of the EPA for an activity covered by section 9 (air & noise) and section 27 (waste) disposal site) for the landfill expansion and excavation
  • Approval under section 20.2 of the EPA for an activity covered by section 53 (sewage works) under the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) for the proposed stormwater retention ponds
  • Permit to Take Water under the OWRA
  • Approvals under the Planning Act (e.g. rezoning)
  • Aggregate Resources Act surrender of licence for depleted resource

These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted. Furthermore, EAA approval does not imply that other approvals will be granted.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed amended EA

An amending procedure is proposed by WM to address potential changes to the detailed design, changes in conditions or the development of mitigation measures for previously unidentified issues. The amending procedure includes a process for both minor and major amendments.

WM has defined minor amendments to include such theings as: changes to detailed design, improvements to the design, new circumstances that may arise during construction or that are identified through other approvals. WM has proposed that a minor amendment would require documentation of the change and a 30-day consultation period with affected stakeholders including Aboriginal communities, MOE and the City of Ottawa. WM has proposed that the MOE would determine if the amendment is minor. WM has indicated that the amendment process for a major amendment would require them to conduct a new EA and obtain the necessary approvals in accordance with the EAA.

It should be noted that the MOE will determine the nature and extent of its review of any proposed amendments and the appropriate use of the minor amendment procedure and the types of changes which may be addressed under this procedure. In general minor amendments may be permitted in circumstances where there are no new net effects. All changes will be documented and provided for the public record. The MOE may also require additional consultation as may be warranted beyond what is described in the Amended EA. There may also be circumstances where a decision may be required by the Minister on an amendment.

Public record locations

The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario

The Review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations:

Ministry of the Environment
Ottawa District Office
2430 Don Reid Drive
Ottawa, Ontario

Waste Management of Canada Corporation Site Office
2301 Carp Road
Carp, Ontario

Waste Management of Canada Corporation Hauling Office
254 Westbrook Road
Stittsville, Ontario

City of Ottawa Public Library, Carp Branch
3911 Carp Road
Carp, Ontario

City of Ottawa Public Library, Stittsville Branch
1637 Main Street
Stittsville, Ontario

City of Ottawa Public Library, Kanata north
2500 Campeau Drive
Kanata, Ontario

City of Ottawa, Clerks Department
110 Laurier Avenue West,
Ottawa, Ontario

Councillor Scott Moffatt Ward Office
2135 Huntley Road
Stittsville, Ontario

Councillor Eli El-Chantiry Ward Office
5670 Carp Road
Carp, Ontario

Councillor Shad Qadri Ward Office
1500 Shea Drive
Stittsville, Ontario

Councillor Marianne Wilkinson Ward Office
2500 Campeau Drive
Kanata, Ontario

Councillor Allan Hubley Ward Office

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending March 29, 2013 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Agathea Garcia-Wright, Director
Environmental Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre
Attention: Charlene Cressman, Special Project Officer

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.

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

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix A.

Appendix B: Submissions received during the intial comment period

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix B.