LaSalle Agri Inc. - Environmental Compliance Approval (sewage)

Comments were received and reviewed, and, where appropriate, were considered in the design of sewage works by the consultant and in the ministry’s decision whether or not to proceed with the proposal.

Summary of the comments and the ministry's responses are below:

1. How the biosolids fertilizer product differs from a sewage waste material, and why the product is safe for growing crops and animal feedstock.

   Ministry’s response: The biosolids fertilizer is produced from sewage sludge through a pasteurization process including heating and/or the addition of alkaline. Both the time of exposure to heat in the dryer and the dryness of the product render it impossible pathogens to survive. The biosolids fertilizer is federally regulated under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) Fertilizers Act, and by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness (OMAFA) as a non-agricultural source material (NASM). The NASM Application and ultimately the approval process requires that the source material and receiving area meet strict criteria. With these in place, it is believed that the product is safe for growing crops and animal feedstock.

2. There is a concern about the potential for contamination of local water supplies, particularly well water, which many residents rely on. Is it possible that pollutants from the fertilizer product, such as pathogens and chemical compounds (e.g., PFAS, pharmaceuticals, phosphorus) could make their way into groundwater via land application of contact stormwater runoff, spilling/flooding of contact stormwater runoff during extreme weather events or other means.

   Ministry’s response: As required by the Fertilizers Act and Regulations and validated by third party accredited laboratories, the fertilizer product has been confirmed to be pathogen free, both before, and after being held at pasteurization temperatures. In addition, the material is tested for PFAS compounds prior to being obtained by the Client, and the product has been confirmed to be significantly less than the CFIA standard. The proposed Site has been designed such that minimal contact between the fertilizer and the stormwater directed to the non-contact pond will occur, if any at all. To protect the environment and human health, minimum separation distances from the area of application to groundwater, bedrock, and wells is required and material may only be applied during certain periods when the ground is not frozen to ensure that uptake of the material is maximized. As determined by OMAFA under NASM Approval No. 61038, both the contact water and area of application meet the criteria of Ontario Regulation 267/03 and the Nutrient Management Act.

3. Risk of contamination to nearby water bodies, particularly the Sydenham River, due to the potential for spilling of contact stormwater runoff containing hazardous materials during extreme weather events.

   Ministry’s response: Any contact water from the site will be collected at the contact stormwater pond, and the contact pond was sized assuming the worst-case scenario to make sure that no overflow will occur during extreme weather events.

4. The facility could emit unpleasant odours, impacting the quality of life for nearby residents and potentially lowering property values. There is also concern about airborne pollutants and fugitive dust from the fertilizer material during loading and unloading operations.

   Ministry’s response: This comment is not directly related to this review of sewage approval application. According to the Company, odour, dust, and other airborne pollutants potentially arising from LaSalle’s operation have been assessed by a third-party consulting firm following MECP guidelines and were found to comply with all standards and acceptable levels set by the MECP.

5. The proposed facility lacks sufficient infrastructure to prevent environmental contamination and mitigate fire risks using the proposed tarps and tires as a cover. It is suggested that a fully enclosed facility with walls and a roof is necessary to control runoff and contain the fertilizer product properly, especially during extreme weather events. The full enclosure could also mitigate odour, dust impacts and fire hazards.

   Ministry’s response: If the fertilizer was stored in a fully enclosed facility/building, it would pose an explosion hazard as well as a fire hazard.

6. This development will cause increase of traffic from transport trucks, noise pollution, and the general disruption to the agricultural landscape. Local businesses, particularly those relying on tourism, may be negatively impacted.

   Ministry’s response: A Traffic Impact Study was completed by a third-party consulting firm to address these concerns regarding traffic and noise concerns. The design of the development and noise assessment addressed these concerns.

7. There is a lack of thorough environmental and public health studies, as well as insufficient consultation with the community and Indigenous groups.

   Ministry’s response: Significant public and agency consultation was conducted during site plan approval and removal of a holding provision (from 2019 through to 2024 to provide input for the planning approvals of the fertilizer storage facility). This development was also gone through the hearing of the Ontario Land Tribunal. Indigenous consultation was conducted during the ECA application process in 2025.

8. This facility would be the first of its kind in Ontario with stockpiling in unprecedented large quantity, with some claiming this is first of this magnitude in North America. Tt could set a dangerous precedent for future projects if not properly regulated and monitored.

   Ministry’s response: The Company with its consultants has assessed potential risks (combustibility, water contamination, air emissions, dust, and odour) that may result from the proposed facility, and developed methods to mitigate all of them, while ensuring compliance with existing regulations.

9. Is it possible that non-contact stormwater or contact stormwater (i.e., NASM liquid) will drain into the Morrogh Creek through a culvert on Kerwood Road and cause any impact.

   Ministry’s response: It is not anticipated that there will be any impact on Morrogh Creek resulting from the discharge of non-contact water given the extremely low flow rate and quality treatment exceeding the MECP’s requirement of min. 80% TSS removal. Contact stormwater will be collected in the contact pond and be utilized for irrigation per the approved NASM plan. In the event that the contact water pond could not handle the flow of water as a result of prolonged wet weather various, LaSalle can truck and haul the water for off-Site disposal or operate a mobile treatment system with a mobile ECA for treatment and disposal.

10. Species at risk exist in the area.

    Ministry’s response: Biologist from the ministry has reviewed the mentioned species and the area. The site is active agricultural land with no natural features (e.g., hedgerows, woodlands, etc.). Provided the site is still active agriculture, the construction of the facility itself would likely not impact species at risk and/or habitat protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Regarding indirect impact to species at risk in the Sydenham River and its tributaries, including Morragh Creek, the facility design and mitigation measures proposed are sufficient to prevent the impact if these are implemented.