After reviewing the…

After reviewing the information provided by York 1, I have a much better understanding of the scope of the proposal but I have some further questions/comments that were not addressed but the presentation.

1. I understand that that it is infinitely easier to amend the ECA of an existing landfill, rather than going through the arduous process of applying for an approval for a new disposal site. Clearly, this is why York 1 has selected this site for expansion; to avoid the time and expense of doing it right and doing it from scratch. What I don’t understand is that Chatham-Kent is neither the location nor, honestly, near any large construction projects. Therefore, would it not be more environmentally responsible and efficient to have the recycling location closer to the generation of the waste, rather than running trucks from these sites to the hamlet of Dresden.

2. On the basis that the increase in material from the existing 200 tonnes per day to 6000 tonnes per day represents a 3000% increase, I would question if it represents an even greater increase, as the current site may not be currently operating at its capacity. The proposed organic/household waste inclusion would exceed the total existing landfill intake capacity. I do not fundamentally understand why household waste would be included in a construction waste disposal and recycling stream? Should the proposal be approved the household and other organic waste should be excluded in order to streamline the highly efficient recycling process and prevent cross contamination.

3. It was unclear in the presentation and application of the Dresden site would be a transfer station as well as the highly efficient recycling facility. In reference to my first concern, if the transfer station is at an alternate location, would the recycling works be better placed closer to the transfer site. If they are both proposed at the Irish School Rd site, why did York 1 not locate their facility closer to construction waste.

4. I appreciate the thought that York 1 proposes to employ local people, although I fear that, in actuality, the only investment made was to the local landowner from who they purchased the land. That said, I applaud the other local landowners that turned down the additional offer for up to 1000 acres of local farmland. Chatham-Kent is almost entirely an agricultural community, so it concerns me that any more arable land would be removed from the production of food. Even the local gas company has minimized its impact on the agricultural area by having pools sites farmed.

This just seems like an improperly placed landfill/recycling site