Commentaire
A landfill that has NOT been in constant operation MUST be assessed as if it were a brand new site. How can you confirm that is does/would/will meet CURRENT requirements visa vie ground water, soil type, location of water ways as regulations regarding landfill placement, capacity and acceptable materials have changed drastically since the original approval. There was previously no requirement for a clay liner to be constructed, no method to contain and/or collect the wastewater generated within the landfill and certainly, no monitoring of the area since it stopped being used.
If the same rule of law applied to everything, anyone born before 1976 would not be required to wear a seat belt as it was not required when they started riding in cars (https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/16064/seatbelts-saving-lives-in-onta…)
The idea is that as we know better, we do better. Granting approval based on past approvals is backwards thinking at best, and dangerous at worst.
On top of which, the surrounding area will be subject to a higher volume of transport truck exhaust for which there are currently no mitigating strategies
Liens connexes
Soumis le 11 avril 2024 9:38 AM
Commentaire sur
Proposition de désignation, en vertu de la Loi sur les évaluations environnementales, du site d’enfouissement et de l’expansion du transfert et du traitement des déchets, situés dans la municipalité de Chatham Kent
Numéro du REO
019-8417
Identifiant (ID) du commentaire
98045
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire