Figure 5-30 Option #4 Impact to Tributaries · removal or loss of the existing land uses,...

Draft Environmental Assessment West Carleton Environmental Centre

5-90

chapter 5. alternative methods to the undertaking

Figure 5-30 Option #4 Impact to Tributaries


5-91


With respect to impacts on cultural and heritage resources for Option #4, there are two cultural

landscape units, one disturbance to a farm house located south of the footprint, and removal of

a portion of the William Mooney roadscape (see Figure 5-31). Mitigation for cultural heritage

resources comes in the form of documentation. Therefore, the resultant net effect is that Option

#4 will create a disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit and removal of another Cultural

Landscape Unit in the vicinity of the footprint. A completed documentation report for archival

purposes will be prepared.

With respect to archaeology, the presence and significance of and potential for archaeological

resources within the study area were determined based the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

conducted by ASI in 2006. The Stage 1 Assessment relied on Ministry of Culture site records

forms, published and unpublished documentary sources, ASI files, and regional physiography to

complete an inventory of the archaeological environment within the study area.

Nine registered archaeological sites were found to exist within 4 km of Option #4, none of which

are located on-site. It was determined; however, that the location of Option #4 exhibits

archaeological site potential, albeit low potential according to the Ministry of Culture (see Figure

5-32). In order to identify and preserve any archaeological remains that may be present within

the lands occupied by the alternative landfill footprints, Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments

would be required for each of the footprints in advance of any construction activities.

A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for Option #4 is required (if selected) to determine if any

potential archaeological resources are present adverse effects on would be avoided or

mitigated.

Transportation

With respect to the effects on airport operations, bird strike hazard is minimized by discouraging

the presence of sea gulls in the vicinity of the landfill site. The existing gull management

program includes harassment techniques (pyrotechnics, gas cannons) and lethal reinforcement.

Additional mitigation will include an Integrated Gull Management Plan, which will include

passive and active deterrents. Through these measures, the bird strike hazard to aircraft will be

minimized from gulls originating from the WCEC.

With respect to the effects from truck transportation in the vicinity of the WCEC, a new entrance

is proposed that will include a northbound left turn lane on Carp Road, designed and

constructed in accordance with the standards and practices of the City of Ottawa and the

Province of Ontario. This new left turn lane will improve safety by reducing conflicts between

northbound left turning and through vehicles and also by reducing driver frustration.


5-92


Figure 5-31 Option #4 Impact on Cultural Heritage Resources


5-93


Figure 5-32 Option #4 Impact on Archaeological Resources


5-94


Northbound through drivers will not be forced to wait behind a turning truck until a suitable gap

is available for the truck driver to complete the turn. This new left turn lane will similarly improve

traffic operations by allowing through traffic to proceed around left turning vehicles, providing an

improved level of service. Given the estimated northbound and southbound traffic volumes on

Carp Road, the northbound left turn lane is warranted. The inconvenience to the public during

the construction of the left turn lane will be temporary and similar to that experienced during

other similar road construction projects. Staging of traffic during construction will be done in

accordance with City and provincial standards for safety of construction workers, vulnerable

road users and vehicular traffic as well as for reasonable traffic operations.

Land Use

With respect to current land use, the evaluation of current land uses utilized the City of Ottawa’s

GIS land use mapping for the area. These maps were last updated on a city-wide scale in

2008; however changes in land use were incorporated into the city’s mapping following detailed

site visits.

The applicable designations in the City of Ottawa Official Plan, the Carp Road Corridor

Community Design Plan (CDP), and the City of Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-law were

also consulted as a guide to determining the existing land uses in the area.

For Option #4, the net environmental effects with respect to current land uses are primarily the

removal or loss of the existing land uses, (including Loss of Industrial, Agriculture, Wooded

Area, and Low Density Residential lands) and their replacement with a waste management

facility. Due to the rural character of the area, Option #1 would reduce the extent of agricultural

and general rural uses, and some wooded/shrub lands.

With respect to planed future land use, the City’s approved planning documents (i.e., Official

Plan, Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan and the Zoning By-law) provide the greatest

indication of the planned future land uses in the area. For Option #4, the General Rural

designation in the Official Plan is the most indicative of future land uses. The presumed effects

of building this Option would be the discontinuation of the rural uses on the lands that would be

occupied by the landfill.

With respect to off-site recreational resources, the type considered under this indicator are

described in provincial land use Guideline D-1-3 (Land Use Compatibility: Definitions) issued by

the Province of Ontario in July 1995. These include uses such as a trailer park or picnic area.

During the evaluation, no such facilities were discovered within 500 m of Option #4.

Consequently, there are no net effects for this indicator.


5-95


Similar to the above, off-site sensitive land uses are described in provincial land use Guideline

D-1-3 (July 1995). These land uses generally include places where people sleep (i.e.,

dwellings), churches, cemeteries and parks. Within 500 m of Option #4, there are varying

numbers of dwellings.

Construction of Option #4 would potentially affect one residence within 500 m of Option #4.

Measures would need to be put in place to manage any potential nuisance (e.g., noise, odour,

visual impact) resulting from the construction and operation of the landfill site in the 500 m

vicinity of these residences.

With respect to Agricultural lands and uses, Option #4 would result in the loss of a dairy farm

and 1 part-time beef farm (see Figure 5-33). Further, in terms of soil type, there would be a

loss of mainly Class 4 agricultural capability soil. Area is generally low agricultural soil capability

as evidenced by the “General Rural Area” designation.

Agricultural land within 500 m of Option #4 was assessed to determine if there would be any

predictable impact on the use of that land. There are three categories of present agricultural

land use within this range. They are: hay, pasture and unused land. No potential effects were

found and no mitigation measures are needed, hence there are no net effects on the

surrounding agricultural land within 500 m of Option #4. Waste Management will implement

‘Best Management Practices’ on the selected new landfill site in future to ensure nuisance

related effects are mitigated in relation to surrounding agricultural operations.

Socio-Economic

The ratio of air space achieved to volume of soil handled has a ratio of 6.5 million m3 to

2.4 million m3. There are no mitigation measures required for this indicator.

The net effects with respect to continued service to customers, the optimized site life/ capacity is

6.5 million m3 over 10 years. There is no mitigation required in relation to this indicator.

With respect to economic benefit to the local community, Option #4 will create jobs in waste

diversion, disposal and green energy facilities over the next 10 years, which is estimated at

approximately 75. The resulting net effects are deemed moderately positive. The opportunities

to provide products or services will continue in relation to Option #4. This resulting net effect is

considered to be high (positive).

In terms of effects on residential and commercial development plans, no impacts are anticipated

in relation to either residential or commercial development plans as the landfill will operate in

accordance with O.Reg 232/98.


5-96


Figure 5-33 Option #4 Impact on Agriculture


5-97


With respect to effects on property tax revenue to the City of Ottawa and MPAC, Option #4

would result in the transition of tax rates from agricultural property (low) to industrial property

(high), thus having a positive net effect on property tax revenue. Option 4 does however, also

result in the loss of a dairy farm and a part-time beef farm, which slightly reduces their net

positive effect on property tax revenue.

In regard to visual impacts, through the installation of extensive berm/vegetation buffer

treatment along the north and northwest edges and short lengths of berm/vegetation buffer

treatment along the south edges of Option #4, the visual impacts resulting from the alternative

landfill footprint option will be largely obscured. In short, the installation of visual screening

elements as mitigation measures will significantly reduce the view of the landfill footprint from

surrounding areas. As such, there will be low net effects associated with the visual impact of the

facility for Option #4.

There are approximately 6,100 residences located within 3 km of the on-site study area site

perimeter. The number of residences present within 500 m of Option #4 would include 1 residence

within the 500 m buffer. Mitigation measures will be put in place to manage nuisance related effects

during construction and operation in order to minimize the effects on these properties.

No recreational resources are located within 500 m of Option #4.

Aboriginal

With respect to Aboriginal interests, WM developed an indicator to evaluate the potential effects

on use of lands for traditional purposes. Initial information from Aboriginal groups and the

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and INAC indicates that the WM property, upon which this

alternative is proposed, is not subject to any current land claims. Consultation with Aboriginal

groups will continue throughout the EA process.

Site Design & Operations

All footprint alternatives will require leachate, gas, and stormwater controls in compliance with

O. Reg. 232/98. Leachate generation rate for closed footprint estimated to be between 2.3 to

3.6 L/s. Base grading design would likely require at least two low points/ leachate pumping

stations. All LCS cleanouts can be located around perimeter of site. The site will likely require

design and construction of four SWM ponds.

The longest leachate forcemain length is approximately 2,100 m and the longest gas forcemain

length is approximately 2,450 m. Minimum haul road length to reach footprint from Carp Road

is 280 m and necessitates closure and WM acquisition of William Mooney Road. This option


5-98


requires importation of approximately 1,836,000 m3 of soil and granular material for base liner,

lcs, and final cover construction and requires importation of approximately 451,000 m3 for base

grading earthworks. This equals up to 246 loads per day.

With respect to operational flexibility, base grading design with two low points affords flexibility

to commence filling in two locations without temporary leachate collection measures.

5.1.8 Comparative Evaluation Results

The comparative evaluation results are summarized within the sections below with additional

details provided in the technical memos included in Supporting Document #2. Further, Table

5-3 provides the rankings and rationale for the net effects determination.

Atmospheric

Odour

All footprint options were expected to be within regulatory compliance and the net effects are

comparable (low net effects), the results were reviewed to determine which footprint option

provided the absolute lowest results. Based on this evaluation, Option #1 was ranked as the

preferred option (ranked #1) as it resulted in the lowest predicted concentrations overall at the

24 receptor locations. The remaining options, Options #2, #3 and #4 were evaluated as tied for

2nd as they had similar results which were slightly higher than Option #1. Preliminary results

from all options are provided in Supporting Document #2 (Attachment C).

Air Quality

With respect to modelled landfill gas emissions (vinyl chloride, benzene and hydrogen sulphide),

since all footprint options were expected to be within regulatory compliance and the net effects

are comparable (low net effects), the results were reviewed to determine which footprint option

provided the absolute lowest results. Based on this secondary evaluation, Option #3 was

ranked 1st, Option #1 was ranked 2nd, Option #4 was ranked 3rd and Option #2 was ranked 4th.

All results were in compliance at all 24 receptor locations. Preliminary results from all options

are provided in Supporting Document #2 (Attachment C).

With respect to modelled combustion Emissions (oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide), since

all footprint options were expected to be within regulatory compliance and the net effects are

comparable (low net effects), the results were reviewed to determine which footprint option

provided the lowest results. Based on this secondary evaluation, Options #1 and #3 were ranked

1st, Options #2 and #4 were ranked 2nd. All results were in compliance at all 24 receptor locations.

Preliminary results from all options are provided in Supporting Document #2 (Attachment C).


5-99


Table 5-3 Comparative Evaluation Results

Environmental Component Criteria Indicators

Alternative Landfill Footprint Options

Option #1

Net Effects

Option #2

Net Effects

Option #3

Net Effects

Option #4

Net Effects

Atmospheric

Environment

Odour Predicted odour emissions. No 99.5th percentile concentrations at off-site

receptors are predicted to be above the MOE’s odour objective of 1 odour unit per cubic metre of air

(10-minute averaging period).

LOW NET EFFECTS

No 99.5th percentile concentrations at off-site



LOW NET EFFECTS




LOW NET EFFECTS




LOW NET EFFECTS

Number of off-site receptors potentially affected

(residential properties, public facilities, businesses and institutions).

No off-site receptors affected.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 1st Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd

Criteria Rationale It should be noted that there were no exceedances with predicted odour emissions for any option; however, Option 1 is marginally preferred because modelled emissions are slightly lower off-site with this option.

Air Quality Modelled Landfill Gas Emissions: Vinyl Chloride

Benzene Hydrogen Sulphide


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS

Number of off-site receptors potentially affected

(residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions).


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 2nd 4th 1st 3rd

Criteria Rationale It should be noted that there were no exceedances with modelled landfill gas emissions for any option; however, Option 3 is marginally preferred because modelled emissions were slightly lower off-site with this option.

Modelled Dust Emissions: Total Suspended Particulate Matter

Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Maximum concentrations at two off-site receptors are predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg. 419/05

standard, AAQC or CWS.

MODERATE NET EFFECTS

No maximum concentrations at off-site receptors are predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg. 419/05


NO NET EFFECTS

Maximum concentration at one off-site receptor is predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg. 419/05


LOW NET EFFECTS

Maximum concentration at one off-site receptor is predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg. 419/05


LOW NET EFFECTS

Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions).

Two off-site receptors will be affected.


No off-site receptors will be affected.

NO NET EFFECTS

One off-site receptor will be affected.

LOW NET EFFECTS

One off-site receptor will be affected.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 4th 1st 3rd 2nd

Criteria Rationale Option 2 is preferred as there are no receptors off-site that are affected by modelled dust emissions.

Modelled Combustion Emissions: Carbon Monoxide

Nitrogen Oxides

No maximum concentrations at off-site receptors are predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg 337

Ambient Air Quality Criteria.

LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd

Criteria Rationale It should be noted that there were no exceedances with modelled combustion emissions for any option; however, Options 1 and 3 are marginally preferred because modelled impacts were

slightly lower off-site with these options.

Noise Predicted site-related noise. Possible site-related noise at some receptors from

time to time.


Minimal site-related noise at receptors.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


Five receptors are predicted to be affected from time to time with levels above 55 dBA or greater than 3 dB

above background.


One off-site receptor will be affected. Acceptable levels are noise levels at or below 55 dBA or within 3

dB of background sound levels.

LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as these will result in minimal site-related noise and affect the least amount of off-site receptors (1).

Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd 1st Tied for 2nd

RATIONALE Option 3 was ranked first compared to the other 3 Options from an Atmospheric component perspective because it has the lowest effects on offsite receptors relating to odour, landfill gas, combustion,

and noise emissions.


5-100





Option #1

Net Effects

Option #2

Net Effects

Option #3

Net Effects

Option #4

Net Effects

Geology &

Hydrogeology

Groundwater

quality

Predicted effects to groundwater quality at

property boundaries and off-site.

No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the options in relation to groundwater quality. All options rank the same.

Groundwater

flow

Predicted groundwater flow characteristics. No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the options in relation to groundwater flow. All options rank the same.

Environmental Component Ranking There is no distinction between the options in relation to geology and hydrogeology. All options rank the same.

RATIONALE Given the proposed mitigation measures (i.e. the use of Generic Design Option II liner system), no off-site groundwater receptors are anticipated to be affected by any of the four options in terms of

groundwater flow or groundwater quality. Therefore, all Options are acceptable from a Geology/Hydrogeology perspective.

Surface Water Resources

Surface water quality

Predicted effects on surface water quality on-site and off-site.

Discharge to surface water with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations in Huntley

Creek (South Branch) at William Mooney Road.

NO NET EFFECTS

Discharge to groundwater with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations.

NO NET EFFECTS

Discharge to groundwater with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations.

NO NET EFFECTS

West Pond discharge to surface water with no increase in TSS and related parameter

concentrations in Huntley Creek (South Branch) at William Mooney Road.

East Pond discharge to groundwater with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations.

NO NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 3rd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 2nd

Criteria Rationale Option 2 and 3 are preferred because they will both use groundwater infiltration as a method of discharge after TSS removal by the sediment forebay.

Surface water quantity

Change in drainage areas. No increase in wetland water levels.

NO NET EFFECTS

Reduced flow to South Branch of Huntley Creek.

Minimal flow in connecting swale.

No increase in flow along Carp Road west ditch.

No effects from relocation of existing Stormwater

Management (SWM) facility #1.

LOW NET EFFECS




No effects from relocation of existing SWM facility #1.

LOW NET EFFECS




No effects from relocation of existing SWM facility #1.

No increase in wetland water levels.

LOW NET EFFECS

Predicted occurrence and degree of off-site effects.

No increase in peak flows at William Mooney Road.

NO NET EFFECTS

Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek

LOW NET EFFECTS

Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek.

No increase in Carp Road flows or peak flows at William Mooney Road.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 1st 3rd 4th 2nd

Criteria Rationale Option 1 is preferred because it uses surface outlet controls, rather than groundwater infiltration, to attenuate flows and does not change the existing surface flow regime on South Huntley Creek.

Environmental Component Ranking 3rd 1st 2nd 4th

RATIONALE Option 2 is ranked as the Preferred Alternative from a Surface Water perspective as it has the lowest net effect on surface water quality and water quantity.

Biology (including Terrestrial and

Aquatic environment)

Terrestrial ecosystems

Predicted impact on vegetation communities due to project.

16.7 ha of vegetation will be removed, including 3.3 ha of unevaluated wetland immediately adjacent to

the PSW, and compensated for elsewhere.

Reduced impacts resulting from increased edge

effects.

No impact on the hydrogeology of the adjacent PSW.

No leachate contamination of adjacent vegetation.

LOW NET EFFECTS

17.1 ha of vegetation will be removed, and compensated for elsewhere.


effects.


LOW NET EFFECTS

22.6 ha of vegetation will be removed, and compensated for elsewhere.


effects.



20.3 ha of vegetation will be removed, including 3.1 ha of potential PSW, and compensated for

elsewhere.

No impacts resulting from increased edge effects.

No impact on the hydrogeology of the adjacent PSW.




5-101





Option #1

Net Effects

Option #2

Net Effects

Option #3

Net Effects

Option #4

Net Effects

Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to project.

Loss of 16.7 ha of vegetated habitat for observed area sensitive bird species and additional agricultural

land, to be compensated for elsewhere within the site.

Permanent interruption of wildlife movement between core woodlots; however, wildlife will adapt to move in

areas of contiguous vegetation.

No increase in nuisance species populations within the PSW or browse on trees within vegetation areas.

Construction disturbance to breeding birds and wildlife minimized through the establishment of

vegetated buffers.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Loss of 3.7 ha of amphibian habitat; however, this type of habitat does exist in other areas on-site and

could be compensated for in these locations.

Loss of 6.0 ha of habitat for area sensitive bird species, to be compensated for elsewhere within the

site.


vegetated buffers.

LOW NET EFFECTS



Loss of 11.5 ha of vegetated habitat for observed area sensitive bird species, to be compensated for

elsewhere within the site.


vegetated buffers.




Loss of 13.4 ha of forested habitat for area sensitive bird species, to be compensated for elsewhere within

the site.

Permanent interruption of movement between core woodlands; however, wildlife will adapt to move in

areas of contiguous vegetation.


vegetated buffers.

MODERATE NET EFFECTS Predicted impact of project on vegetation and

wildlife including rare, threatened or endangered species.

No impact on rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.

NO NET EFFECTS

No rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.

NO NET EFFECTS

No rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.

NO NET EFFECTS

No impact on rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.

NO NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: Tied 1st Tied 1st 4th 3rd Criteria Rationale Options 1 and 2 are preferred as they result in the least amount of vegetation being removed, least amount of wildlife habitat, including amphibian habitat and vegetated habitat for observed area

sensitive birds. Aquatic

ecosystems Predicted changes in water quality. Realignment of 878 m of Tributary C would maintain

some surface water conveyance, however there may be increased runoff and contaminant loading from the surrounding land use due to the loss of some of this

agricultural drain.

LOW NET EFFECTS

There are no permanent or intermittent streams located within this area.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Realignment of 1,016 m of Tributary C would maintain some surface water conveyance however

there would still be a loss of some of the drain. There may be increased runoff and contaminant loading from the surrounding land use onto the remaining

sections of the watercourse.

LOW NET EFFECTS Predicted impact on aquatic habitat due to

project. There will be some loss of fish habitat however there

are opportunities to realign the watercourses to maintain connectivity and to create or improve habitat In adjacent tributaries. Tributary C appears to support some fish during the freshet although on a seasonal basis, therefore would not be classed as permanent

fish habitat.

LOW NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

There will be some loss of fish habitat however there are opportunities to realign the watercourses to

maintain connectivity and to create or improve habitat in adjacent tributaries. Tributary C appears to support some fish during the freshet although on a seasonal basis, therefore would not be classed as permanent

fish habitat.

LOW NET EFFECTS Predicted impact on aquatic biota due to

project. If works are carried out while the channel is dry (no flow), there will be no impact to the aquatic biota.

LOW NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

If works are carried out while the channel is dry (no flow), there will be no impact to the aquatic biota.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they do not include any streams (permanent or intermittent) and therefore no net effects on aquatic habitat.

Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd

RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are ranked as the Preferred Alternatives from a Biology perspective as they result in the least amount of vegetation being removed, least amount of wildlife habitat, do not have any

permanent or intermittent streams flowing through their landfill footprints and do not require the realignment of any streams. Archaeology &

Cultural Heritage Cultural and

heritage resources

Cultural and heritage resources on-site and in vicinity and predicted impacts on them.

Disturbance to three Cultural Landscape Units in the vicinity of the footprint.

A completed documentation report for archival purposes will be prepared.

Potential relocation of a significant built heritage resource will be considered.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit and one Built Heritage Feature in the vicinity of the footprint.



LOW NET EFFECTS

Disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit and one Built Heritage Feature in the vicinity of the footprint.



LOW NET EFFECTS

Loss of a portion of one Cultural Landscape Unit located within the footprint and disturbance to one

Cultural Landscape Unit in the vicinity of the footprint.




Criteria Ranking: 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 3rd

Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as these options result in minimal effects on Cultural Landscape Units and Built Heritage Features.


5-102





Option #1

Net Effects

Option #2

Net Effects

Option #3

Net Effects

Option #4

Net Effects

Archaeological resources

Presence of archaeological resources on-site. Potential adverse effects to potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated.

NO NET EFFECTS

Potential adverse effects on potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Significance of on-site archaeology resources potentially displaced/disturbed.

Potential adverse effects to potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the Options in relation to Archaeological resources. All options rank the same.

Environmental Component Ranking 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 3rd

RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are ranked as the Preferred Alternatives from an Archaeology and Cultural Heritage perspective as these options result in minimal effects on Cultural Landscape Units and Built Heritage Features.

Transportation Effects on airport

operations

Bird strike hazard to aircraft in Local Study Area.

Bird strikes would be minimized from gulls originating from the WCEC.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the Options in relation to effects on airport operations. All options rank the same.

Effects from truck transport along access

roads

Potential for traffic collisions. Improved safety in comparison with existing conditions with the separation of northbound through

and left turning traffic.

HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS

Improved safety in comparison with existing conditions with the separation of northbound through









Disturbance to traffic operations. Improved operations for northbound through traffic in comparison with existing conditions.


Improved operations for northbound through traffic in comparison with existing conditions.






Proposed road improvement requirements. Minor temporary construction related effects.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Minor temporary construction related effects.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the options in relation to effects from truck transport along access roads. All options include a northbound left turn lane on Carp Road into the site. The closure of William Mooney Road does not impact on the criteria and indicators. All options rank the same.

Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

RATIONALE With respect to Transportation, there is no distinction between the Options. Net effects are positive or minimal in all cases.

Land Use Effects on current and

planned future land uses

Current land use. Current land uses removed and replaced with a waste management facility.

Loss of Agriculture, Wooded Area, Idle and Shrub

Land, and Low Density Residential lands.


Current land uses removed and replaced with a waste management facility.

Loss of Industrial, Wooded Area and Idle and Shrub

Lands.

LOW NET EFFECTS


Loss of Industrial, Wooded Area and Idle and Shrub

Lands.

LOW NET EFFECTS


Loss of Industrial, Agriculture, Wooded Area, and

Low Density Residential lands.


Planned future land use. The Rural use of the lands would be discontinued.

LOW NET EFFECTS

The Rural and Industrial uses would be discontinued; however the change in use is

compatible with the planned Industrial uses in the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan.

NO NET EFFECTS

The Rural and Industrial uses would be discontinued; however the change in use is

compatible with the planned Industrial uses in the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan.

NO NET EFFECTS

The Rural use of the lands would be discontinued.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Type(s) and proximity of off-site recreational resources within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected.

No off-site recreational resources within 500 m of the landfill footprint.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Type(s) and proximity of off-site sensitive land uses (i.e., dwellings, churches, cemeteries, parks) within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected.

28 residences plus 4 vacant residential lots are found within 500 m of the landfill footprint.


5 residences are found within 500 m of the landfill footprint.

LOW NET EFFECTS

7 residences are found within 500 m of the landfill footprint.

LOW NET EFFECTS

1 residence is found within 500 m of the landfill footprint.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 3rd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 2nd

Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are slightly preferred over Options 1 and 4 as the loss of current land uses are marginally less, the options are consistent with planned future land uses, and there are few sensitive land uses within 500 metres.


5-103





Option #1

Net Effects

Option #2

Net Effects

Option #3

Net Effects

Option #4

Net Effects

Displacement of

agricultural land

Current land use. Loss of dairy farm and 1 part-time beef farm.

Loss of mainly Class 4 agricultural capability soil. Area is generally low agricultural soil capability as

evidenced by the “General Rural Area” designation.


Loss of dairy farm or farm continues with new

cropland elsewhere.

Loss of some Class 3 and 4 agricultural capability soil.

Area is generally low agricultural capability soil, as evidenced by the “General Rural Area” designation.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Loss of dairy farm or farm continues with new

cropland elsewhere.

Loss of some Class 3 and 4 agricultural capability

soil. Area is generally low agricultural soil capability as evidenced by the “General Rural Area”

LOW NET EFFECTS

Loss of dairy farm and 1 part-time beef farm.

Loss of mainly Class 4 agricultural capability soil. Area is generally low agricultural soil capability as

evidenced by the “General Rural Area” designation.


Predicted impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

No impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Type(s) and proximity of agricultural operations

(i.e., organic, cash crop, livestock) and intensive farm operations in surrounding area.

Existing farm operations in the proximity to proposed

landfill footprint will continue to operate.

NO NET EFFECTS



NO NET EFFECTS



NO NET EFFECTS



NO NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd

Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred over Options 1 and 4 as the farm infrastructure is preserved west of William Mooney Road, as well as the part-time beef farm.

Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd

RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are preferred over Options 1 and 4 from a Land Use perspective as the losses of current land uses are minimized. Preserving the farm infrastructure west of William Mooney Road allows

the dairy farm to retain their core operation in place, while sourcing part of their feed requirements from a new location. One part-time beef farm is also preserved.

Economic Effects on the cost of services

to customers

Ratio of air space achieved to volume of soil to be excavated and area of cell base and

leachate collection system to be constructed.

Ratio of airspace achieved to total amount of soil handled is 6.5 mil m3 to 1.9 mil m3.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS





Criteria Ranking: 2nd 1st 3rd 4th

Criteria Rationale Option 2 is preferred as the ratio of airspace achieved to volume of soil to be excavated provides the maximum benefit from a cost of service to customers perspective.

Continued service to customers

Total optimized site capacity and site life. The total optimized site capacity is 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years.

NO NET EFFECTS

The total optimized site capacity is 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the Options in relation to continued service to customers. All options rank the same.

Economic benefit to local

municipality

Employment at site (number and duration). Up to 75 new jobs in waste diversion, disposal and green energy facilities for the next ten years.

MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS

Up to 75 new jobs in waste diversion, disposal and green energy facilities for the next ten years.






Opportunities to provide products or services. Continue services to customers for waste disposal.


Continue services to customers for waste disposal.







Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the Options in relation to economic benefit to the local municipality. All options rank the same.

Effects on Residential and

Commercial

Development

Residential development plans. No impact on residential development plans.

NO NET EFFECTS

No impact on residential development plans.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Commercial development plans. No impact on commercial development plans.

NO NET EFFECTS

No impact on commercial development plans.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the Options in relation to effects on residential and commercial developments. All options rank the same.

Effects on Property Tax

Revenue on the City of Ottawa

City of Ottawa. Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate.

Loss of dairy farm & 1 part-time beef farm.

LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT

Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate.

MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT







5-104





Option #1

Net Effects

Option #2

Net Effects

Option #3

Net Effects

Option #4

Net Effects

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

(MPAC).











Criteria Ranking: Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd

Criteria Rationale Option 2 and 3 are preferred as they result in the greatest positive net effect in terms of effects on the City of Ottawa’s property tax revenue.

Environmental Component Ranking 2nd 1st 3rd 4th

RATIONALE Option 2 is preferred as the only discernable difference is that it provides a better ratio of airspace to total soil excavated, thereby providing the maximum benefit from a cost of service to customers perspective.

Social Visual impact of the facility

Predicted changes in perceptions of landscapes and views.

Installation of visual screening elements would obscure view from surrounding areas of the facility.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 2nd

Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as the greatest number of views to the footprint would be screened or obscured.

Local residents Number of residences. 28 residences within 500 m of the landfill footprint.

Approximately 6,100 residences within 3 km of the

site perimeter.

HIGH NET EFFECTS

5 residences within 500 m of the landfill footprint.


site perimeter.


7 residences within 500 m of the landfill footprint.


site perimeter.


1 residence within 500 m of the landfill footprint.


site perimeter.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 4th 2nd 3rd 1st

Criteria Rationale Option 4 is preferred because the fewest number of residences are located within 500 m of this footprint.

Recreational facilities

Type(s) and proximity of off-site recreational resources within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected.

No recreational facilities within 500 m of potential landfill footprint.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale: There is no distinction between the Options in relation to recreational facilities. All options rank the same.

Environmental Component Ranking 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 2nd

RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they result in the least amount of effects from a visual perspective as well as the number of residences and recreational facilities within 500m of the landfill footprint.

Aboriginal Potential effects

on Aboriginal communities

Potential effects on use of lands for traditional

purposes.

No effects on Aboriginal communities.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

RATIONALE There is no distinction between the Options in relation to Aboriginal environmental component. All options rank the same.

Site Design &

Operations

Site design and

operations characteristics

Complexity of site infrastructure. Site design will incorporate leachate, gas, and SW

controls in accordance with O.Reg 232/98.

Leachate generation rate for closed footprint

estimated to be between 1.8 to 2.9 L/s.

Base grading design would likely require at least two

low points/ leachate pumping stations.

LCS cleanouts will need to be located around

perimeter and in centre of site.

Site will require design and construction of two SWM

ponds.

Longest leachate forcemain length is approx.

2350 m.

Longest gas forcemain length is approx. 3200 m.

Minimum haul road length to reach footprint from

Site design will incorporate leachate, gas, and SW




Base grading design would likely require one low

point/ leachate pumping station.

All LCS cleanouts can be located around perimeter

of site.

Site will likely require design and construction of

three SWM ponds.

Longest leachate forcemain length is approx. 1350

m.







Base grading design would likely require two low

points/ leachate pumping stations.


of site.

Site will likely require design and construction of

three SWM ponds.


m.







Base grading design would likely require at least two

low points/ leachate pumping stations.


of site.

Site will likely require design and construction of four

SWM ponds.


m.

Longest gas forcemain length is approx. 2450 m



5-105





Option #1

Net Effects

Option #2

Net Effects

Option #3

Net Effects

Option #4

Net Effects

Carp Road is 1,375 m.

Necessitates closure and WM acquisition of William

Mooney Road.

Requires importation of approximately 1,481,000 m3 of soil and granular material for base liner, lcs, and

final cover construction.

Requires importation of approximately 374,000 m3

for base grading earthworks


Carp Road is 330 m.

Landfill footprint does not encroach on William

Mooney Road precluding need for road closure and

acquisition by WM.

Requires importation of approximately 1,376,000 m3

of soil and granular material for base liner, lcs, and final cover construction.

Requires importation of approximately 148,000 m3 for base grading earthworks.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Carp Road is 330 m.

Landfill footprint does not encroach on William

Mooney Road precluding need for road closure and

acquisition by WM.

Requires importation of approximately 1,703,000 m3

of soil and granular material for base liner, lcs, and final cover construction.

Requires importation of approximately 179,000 m3 for base grading earthworks.


Carp Road is 280 m.

Necessitates closure and WM acquisition of William

Mooney Road.

Requires importation of approximately 1,836,000 m3 of soil and granular material for base liner, lcs, and

final cover construction.

Requires importation of approximately 451,000 m3

for base grading earthworks.

HIGH NET EFFECTS

Operational flexibility. Base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to commence filling in two locations without

temporary leachate collection measures.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Base grading design with one low point requires temporary leachate collection measures if filling to

start anywhere but at the low point.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to commence filling in two locations without


LOW NET EFFECTS

Base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to commence filling in two locations without


LOW NET EFFECTS

Environmental Component Ranking 3rd 1st 2nd 4th

RATIONALE Option 2 is ranked as the Preferred Alternative from a Site Design & Operations environmental component perspective as it is the least complex option to implement and provides a high level of

operational flexibility.

OVERALL RANKING 3rd

1st

2nd

4th

OVERALL RATIONALE

Option 2 is ranked 1st

for the following reasons:

It has the lowest predicted net effects on Archaeological & Cultural Heritage;

It has the lowest predicted net effect on Biology (Terrestrial & Aquatic environment);

It has the lowest predicted net effect on Land Use;

It has the lowest predicted net effect on Surface Water;

It has the lowest predicted net effect on Socio-Economic; and

Optimal landfill design from an implementation/operational perspective.


5-106


With respect to modelled particulate Emissions (TSP, PM10 and PM2.5), the results were

primarily ranked based on the number of receptors expected to be predicted over the standards,

guidelines, ambient air quality criteria and Canadian Wide Standards. Based on this evaluation,

Option #2 was ranked as 1st as it has no levels predicted in excess of any applicable criteria.

Option #4 was ranked as 2nd as it has only 1 receptor that was predicted to exceed with the

least percentage above criteria. Option #3 was ranked 3rd as it too has only one receptor that

exceeded, but the predicted concentration was slightly higher than that predicted for Option #4.

Option #1 was ranked as 4th as it had two receptors that were predicted to be in excess of the

applicable criteria. Preliminary results from all options are provided in Supporting Document

#2 (Attachment C).

Noise

The evaluation results were primarily ranked based on the number of receptors expected to be

in excess of 55 dBA or within 3 dB of background limits. For noise, Options #2, #3, and #4 were

ranked as being tied for 1st as each option only had one receptor predicted to be in excess of 55

dBA or greater than 3 dB above background. Option #1 has a total of five receptors that were

either greater than 55 dBA or greater than 3 dB above background and therefore ranked as 2nd

with moderate impacts. Preliminary results from all options are provided in Supporting

Document #2 (Attachment C).

Overall Component Ranking

Option #3 was ranked 1st compared to the other three options from an Atmospheric perspective

as it has the lowest effects relating to modelled landfill gas emissions and was tied for the

lowest effects relating to modelled combustion emission and on noise receptors.

Geology & Hydrogeology

Groundwater Quality

All four options are tied for 1st as no off-site groundwater receptors will be affected.

Groundwater Flow

All four options are tied for 1st as no off-site groundwater receptors will be affected.


5-107



The results of the comparative evaluation are that no off-site groundwater receptors are

anticipated to be affected by any of the four landfill footprint options. The key factors leading to

this result are:

the use of the Generic Design Option II leachate containment and collection

system, which is protective of the groundwater environment, and

the hydrogeologic conditions are suitable for effectively monitoring

groundwater flow and quality around the landfill footprints.


Surface Water Quality

From a surface water quality criteria perspective, all four options achieved a “no net effect”

rating due to the two stage SWMF design being able to mitigate both leachate seepage and

TSS concentrations.

However, for ranking purposes, Options #2 and #3 tied for 1st as they both use groundwater

discharge, rather than direct discharge to surface water, as an outlet mechanism and this

increases the level of water quality treatment that is being provided. Option #4 is 2nd with a

hybrid system while Option #1 is 3rd with only direct discharge to surface water as an outlet

mechanism, with no further water quality polishing being provided.

Surface Water Quantity

From a surface water quantity criteria perspective, only Option #1 had a “no net effect” rating as

all flow was attenuated to pre-development (existing) levels with an outlet to surface water that

preserved the South Huntley Creek flow regime. The other three options had the impact of

slightly reducing flows in Huntley Creek and its tributaries but the effect is negligible (and might

be perceived as a benefit) and the options were rated as having “low net effects”.

Option #1 was ranked 1st due to its “no net effect” rating on the local flow regime. Option #4 was

ranked 2nd due to its hybrid nature (not all SWMF outflow went to groundwater) and thereby

having less of an effect on the local flow regime, than Option #2 and Option #3. Between Option

#2 and Option #3, Option #2 was ranked 3rd as its footprint was smaller than Option #3 and had

less of an impact on flows being directed to groundwater was ranked 4th since it had a larger

footprint and more impact on the local flow regime.


5-108



In ranking the options from an overall Surface Water perspective, Option #2 is 1st since it has

the lowest net effect. This assumes that the net effects related to water quality have been given

a slightly higher value than the net effects related to water quantity, in that, for the analysis of

these options in this locale, the water quantity net effects are a reduction in flows that is

generally perceived as a benefit.

Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Option #1 has an advantage in that it results in the least amount of forest loss and the majority

of wetland area that would be removed does not appear to provide amphibian breeding habitat.

Option #2 would result in the least amount of habitat loss for area sensitive species and has the

least barrier effect to wildlife corridors. Option #3 is the least favoured overall largely because it

would result in the greatest total vegetation loss. Option #4 would remove the greatest amount

of forest. It also has the longest barrier effect to wildlife corridors.

Overall Criteria Ranking

Options #1 and #2 are tied for first and preferred from a terrestrial ecosystem basis as they

result in the least amount of vegetation being removed, the least amount of wildlife habitat being

disturbed, including amphibian habitat and vegetated habitat for observed area sensitive birds.

Aquatic Ecosystems

Options #2 and #3 are preferred from an aquatic biology perspective as they do not include any

watercourses (permanent or intermittent) in the project footprint and therefore there is no impact

to aquatic habitat or biota. Options #1 and #4 are tied as both are very similar in the predicted

impacts and proposed mitigation. Both of these options require the permanent destruction of a

section of Tributary C which supports seasonal fish habitat. For both options #1 and #4, this

loss of habitat can be compensated by either channel realignment, or habitat creation or

enhancement in other tributaries within the South Huntley Subwatershed. Impacts to the aquatic

biota can be completely mitigated if all work is carried out in the dry, therefore there are low net

effects for both Options #1 and #4.

Overall Criteria Ranking

Options #2 and #3 are preferred as they do not include any streams (permanent or intermittent)

and therefore no net effects on aquatic habitat.


5-109



From a Biology (including Terrestrial and Aquatic environment) component perspective, Options

#2 and #3 are ranked as the Preferred Alternatives from a Biology perspective as they result in

the least amount of vegetation being removed, least amount of wildlife habitat, do not have any

permanent or intermittent streams flowing through their landfill footprints and do not require the

realignment of any streams.

Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

Cultural & Heritage Resources

With respect to Cultural and Heritage Resources, Options #2 and #3 have the lowest net

effects, as they would result in disturbance to only one Cultural Landscape Unit and one Built

Heritage Feature. For this reason they rank 1st amongst the four alternative landfill footprints for

this indicator. Option #1 ranks in second place as it would result in disturbance to three Cultural

Landscape Units, and Option #4 ranks last as it would result in the loss of a portion of one

Cultural Heritage Landscape and disturbance to another.

Archaeological Resources

With regard to the presence of archaeological resources on-site and the significance of on-site

archaeology resources potentially displaced/disturbed, all four options would result in no net

effects (i.e., potential adverse effects to potential archaeological resources would be avoided or

mitigated), thus all four alternative landfill footprints are tied for first place.


Given these findings, the preferred footprints in relation to Cultural Heritage Resources is

determined to be Options #2 and #3 (tied for 1st) as these options result in minimal effects on

Cultural Landscape Units and Built Heritage Features.

Transportation

Effects on Airport Operations

Each of the alternatives will incorporate a Gull Management Program to ensure that bird strikes

would be minimized from gulls originating from the WCEC. Therefore, all options rank the same

(tied for 1st) with respect to effects on airport operations.


5-110


Effects from Truck Transport along Access Roads

All of the alternatives rank the same from this criteria’s perspective as the implementation of a

new entrance with a northbound left hand turn lane on Carp Road into the site apply to all four

alternatives. Further, the volume of truck traffic and road improvements is the same for each

alternative footprint.


As the gull management program, the entrance to the WCEC and the anticipated volume of

truck traffic are the same for all alternatives, there is no difference between the alternatives with

respect to the Transportation component, therefore all Options are ranked as tied for 1st.

Land Use

Current & Future Land Uses

With respect to current land uses, Options #2 and #3 have the lowest net effects, as they would

result in the reduction of the lowest diversity of land uses. Options #1 and #4 have moderate

net effects on current land uses as some land for agricultural and residential uses would be

removed as a result of the landfill construction.

In regard to planned future uses, Options #2 and #3 are considered to have no net effects as

the industrial uses planned within the Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment Area are generally

compatible with the waste disposal function. Options #1 and #4 have relatively greater impact

on future land uses in recognition that the ongoing rural function of the lands would be

discontinued. Though potential effects can likely be mitigated, Option #1 is considered to be

somewhat less favourable as a result of the four vacant residential lots that fall within the 500 m

site vicinity area.

Since there are no recreational resources (as defined in provincial Guideline D-1-3) within

500 m of the alternative landfill footprints, there are no net effects registered for any of the

alternatives in respect of this indicator. Consequently, each alternative is considered equal.

A small number of residential lots fall within the 500 m site vicinity area for each of Options #2,

#3 and #4. It is assumed that nuisance management measures would mitigate any negative

effects for these properties. For Option #1, there are considerably more residential lots within

500 m of the landfill footprint which, if implemented, might require a more complicated set of

mitigation measures to satisfy these residents.


5-111


Given the above, Options #2 and #3 are tied for first place in the comparative evaluation as the

preferred footprint as the loss of current land uses is less extensive than with either of Options

#1 and #4; the number of sensitive land uses (i.e., residential lots) within 500 m of Options #2

and #3 is considerably less than for Option #1; and these two options are located entirely within

the Carp Road Rural Employment Area as described in the Carp Road Corridor Community

Design Plan. As such, the waste disposal uses are relatively more compatible with the planned

industrial employment function of the than are Options #1 and #4 with the rural and agricultural

landscapes that they would replace.

Displacement of Agricultural Lands

Options #2 & #3 are tied for 1st, from a land use perspective, as losses of current land use are

minimized with these two Options. Preserving the farm infrastructure west of William Mooney

Road allows the dairy farm to retain their core operation in place, while sourcing part of their

feed requirements from a new location. One part-time beef farm is also preserved.

While landfill footprint Options #2 & #3 are rated as being equal with low net effects, there is a

slight advantage to Option #2. This option saves a few hectares of Class 3 agricultural capability

soil between William Mooney Road and the proposed landfill footprint location, while Option #3

does not save Class 3 soil in this area.


Options #2 and #3 are preferred over Options #1 and #4 from a Land Use perspective as the

losses of current land uses are minimized. Preserving the farm infrastructure west of William

Mooney Road allows the dairy farm to retain their core operation in place, while sourcing part of

their feed requirements from a new location. One part-time beef farm is also preserved.

Socio-Economic

Effects on the Cost of Services to Customers

The effects on the cost of services to customers differ somewhat among the options, with

Option 2 ranking in 1st place, having the lowest ratio of airspace achieved to total amount of soil

handled; Option 1 placing 2nd; Option 3 ranking 3rd; and Option 4 coming in last place.

Continued Service to Customers

In terms of the criteria for continued service to customers, there are no differences among the

four options.


5-112


Economic Benefit to Local Municipality

In terms of the criteria for economic benefit to the local municipality, there are no differences

among the four options.

Effects on Residential and Commercial Development

In terms of the criteria for effects on residential and commercial development, there are no

differences among the four options.

Effects on Property Tax Revenue on the City of Ottawa

With respect to the effects on property tax revenue on the City of Ottawa in relation to each of

the four alternative landfill footprint options, Options #2 and #3 are preferred as they result in the

greatest positive net effect on the City of Ottawa’s property tax revenue.

Overall Component Ranking – Economic

Based on the assessment of these criteria, Option #2 is preferred with respect to the economic

environmental component, as the only discernible difference is that it provides a better ratio of

airspace to total soil excavated, thereby providing the maximum benefit from a cost of service to

customers’ perspective.

Visual Impact of the Facility

The visual impact of the four alternative landfill footprint options will be largely obscured through

the implementation of visual screening measures. There will however, be some differences

among the four options, based on the location of each of the footprints in relation to the existing

landfill and surroundings. Options #2 and #3 would result in the greatest number of views being

screened or obscured, thus placing them both in 1st. Options #1 and #4 would result in a greater

number of views compared to Options #2 and #3, placing them in 2nd.

Local Residents

A small number of residential lots fall within 500 m of each of Options #2, #3 and #4. It is

assumed that nuisance management measures would mitigate any negative effects for these

properties. For Option #1, there are considerably more residential lots within 500 m of the

landfill footprint which, if implemented, might require a more complicated set of mitigation

measures to satisfy these residents. With respect to the local residents criteria Option #4 results

in low net effects (ranked 1st), Options #2 and #3 result in moderate net effects (ranked 2nd and

3rd, respectively), and Option #1 results in high net effects (ranked 4th).


5-113


Recreational Facilities

As there are no recreational facilities (as defined in provincial Guideline D-1-3) within 500 m of

the alternative landfill footprints, there are no net effects anticipated for any of the alternatives in

respect to this indicator. Consequently, each alternative is considered equal.

Overall Component Ranking – Social

Based on the rankings for the individual criteria, the overall social environmental component

rankings for the four alternative landfill footprint options identify Options #2 and #3 as preferred

as they result in the lowest effects from a visual perspective as well as the number of

residences within 500 m of the landfill footprints.

Aboriginal


With respect to Aboriginal interests, WM developed an indicator to evaluate the potential effects

on use of lands for traditional purposes. Initial information from Aboriginal groups and the Ministry

of Aboriginal Affairs and INAC indicates that the WM property, upon which this alternative is

proposed, is not subject to any current land claims. Consultation with Aboriginal groups will

continue throughout the EA process. Therefore, all footprint options rank the same, tied for 1st.

Site Design & Operations

Site Design and Operations Characteristics

A number of site design elements which are influenced by footprint location and size are

relevant in ranking the alternatives relative to the ‘complexity’ indicator. In general, alternatives

which simplify the design and construction of required elements are preferred.

All footprint alternatives will require leachate, gas, and stormwater controls in compliance with

O. Reg. 232/98, and the alternatives differ mainly in the volume of imported construction

materials required to construct these controls. It is anticipated that all of the material required to

build the clay base liners, the leachate collection system drainage layers, and final cover will

need to be imported. Given that control system designs would likely be similar at each

alternative, the volume of imported materials will vary proportionately with footprint size.

Imported construction material volume is a significant comparator because importation activities

can have significant follow-on effects on other environmental components such as air emissions

and traffic impacts (note, these follow-on effects are evaluated within the appropriate

component evaluations). The post-closure leachate generation rates vary between the

alternatives proportionate to footprint size.


5-114


The location and size of the footprints, and the existing topography at the footprint location will

influence the design of the landfill base grades, the location of leachate pumping stations, the

number and location of leachate collection system cleanout structures, and the number and

location of stormwater management ponds. Typical base grading objectives include minimizing

the need for imported fill (e.g., ideally on-site soils can be cut/filled to create the base grades),

and to create sufficient slope to drain leachate by gravity to low points where pumping stations

are located. It is typically desirable to minimize the number of pumping stations. Leachate

cleanout structures are access points where inspection and cleaning equipment can be inserted

into the system, and structures at the perimeter of the site are simpler to construct and maintain

than cleanouts located within the landfill footprint. The existing topography at the footprint

location will also dictate the location and number of stormwater management ponds.

Footprint location relative to key existing infrastructure is relevant as this influences the length of

utilities and access roads. Relevant comparators include the approximate length of leachate

and gas pipelines required to reach existing treatment/utilization facilities to the southeast of the

existing landfill, as well as the length of haul road between the footprint and Carp Road, which is

considered the only reasonable access route to the site. On this basis alternatives which entail

shorter road and pipeline lengths are preferred.

Another comparator for footprint location is impact on William Mooney Road. If the footprint

encroaches on the road then the road must be acquired by WM and closed. This is also the

case if the footprint location requires that waste trucks cross William Mooney Road, because

concurrent use of the road by public and site traffic may create road hazards, and also

precludes good landfill site security.

The ‘operational flexibility’ comparator was evaluated on the basis of where landfilling activities

could logically be commenced within the footprint, which is relevant when considering the

distance of the working face to various receptors. In general it is considered preferable to

commence filling at the low point of the site because this avoids the need to construct temporary

leachate control measures. However, because the variation in the number of low points is low

(e.g., all footprints have either one or two low points), and because the implementation of

temporary measures is not viewed as a particularly restrictive design/construction requirement,

all alternatives were viewed roughly equal in this regard.


The evaluation resulted in Option #2 as being preferred because it entails the least design and

construction complexity for many comparators than the other alternatives. Further, Option #2

also has the lowest number of trips for required material and lowest leachate generation. All

footprint alternatives were considered to have similar operational flexibility.


5-115


5.1.9 Overall Landfill Footprint Option Rankings

Given the above discussion at the component level, the following overall rankings have been

applied to each Footprint Option:

1st ........... Option #2

2nd .......... Option #3

3rd ........... Option #1

4th ........... Option #4

Option #2 was selected as the preferred landfill footprint alternative for the following reasons:

Low effects on Geology and Hydrogeology

Lowest effects on Surface Water Resources

Lowest effects on biology (terrestrial and aquatic)

Lowest effects on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Resources

High net positive effect on transportation

Lowest effects on land use factors

Lowest Socio-Economic effects

Optimal landfill design from an implementation/operational perspective

The only component where Option #2 was ranked in a lower standing than the other options

was with respect to the Atmospheric component. It should be noted though that all of the all

footprint options are expected to be within regulatory compliance from an air quality, odour and

noise perspective, and the net effects were all comparable (low net effects).

Given that Option #2 ranked as the best Option from the majority of components, this

footprint Option will be carried forward to the Detailed Impact Assessment stage.

5.1.10 Summary of Landfill Footprint Options Evaluation

The generation, assessment and evaluation of landfill footprint options was carried out in

accordance with the approved WCEC ToR. Using the existing conditions information collected

as part of identifying the envelopes for potential development, alternative landfill footprints were

generated at a conceptual level of design. Once WM confirmed that the 4 options would be

carried forward for evaluation, further details were completed with respect to each of the landfill

footprint options in a Conceptual Design Report.

Following the identification of the alternative landfill footprints, a detailed assessment and

evaluation of the four footprints was undertaken. This multi-step process began with confirming


5-116


the evaluation criteria and indicators and applying them to each of the four footprint options

through a “net effects analysis” to determine the net positive or negative environmental effects.

By identifying the potential effects on the environment (both positive and negative) for each

footprint alternative, and then applying (where applicable) appropriate avoidance/ mitigation/

compensation/ enhancement measures, the relative merits of each footprint were compared on

the basis of net effects.

Once the net effects were determined, rankings were assigned to each individual Criteria based

on the level of effect determined for each Indicator under that Criteria. Following this, an overall

ranking for each alternative (based on the individual Environmental Component rankings) was

determined. A Reasoned Argument or Trade-off method was carried out using this information

to determine a preferred landfill footprint.

Given that Option #2 ranked as the best Option from the majority of components, this footprint

Option will be carried forward to the Detailed Impact Assessment stage.

5.2 Alternative Methods – Leachate Treatment

This section of Chapter 5 presents background information on the requirement to collect and

control leachate, projected leachate volumes and quality, a description of the proposed leachate

treatment alternatives, a qualitative assessment of the alternatives, and identification of a

preferred approach to leachate disposal for the new landfill footprint.

The leachate treatment alternatives have been described to a conceptual level of detail to

enable a comparative analysis. The descriptions have focused on identifying characteristics

that could be used to differentiate the alternatives from one another. The preferred leachate

treatment alternative will be described in further detail as part of the detailed impact assessment

of the undertaking.

5.2.1 Considerations for Leachate Treatment Alternatives

5.2.1.1 Leachate Control

The landfill leachate collection and treatment system for the new landfill footprint must be

designed in accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 232/98 (O.Reg. 232/98).

In addition, the MOE’s Reasonable Use Guideline B-7 must be met. The Reasonable Use

Guideline sets limits for the allowable concentrations of contaminants based on background

groundwater quality and the reasonable use of groundwater on adjacent property. The limits

are set such that there would not be any significant effect on the use of groundwater on the

adjacent property. The O.Reg. 232/98 allows for two approaches to designing a landfill to


5-117


protect groundwater quality – a site specific design, or a generic design. The site specific

approach allows a proponent to design the leachate controls to suit the site setting provided that

the Reasonable Use limits are met. The generic approach allows the proponent to select one of

two generic designs which have been developed such that the Reasonable Use limits are met

within a broad range of hydrogeologic settings.

At this time WM is planning to design the new landfill footprint with the Generic II – Double Liner

system as specified in the O.Reg. 232/98. This consists of (from top down):

0.3 m thick granular/perforated pipe primary leachate collection system;

0.75 m thick geomembrane/engineered clay primary liner;

0.3 m thick granular/perforated pipe secondary leachate collection system;

0.75 m thick geomembrane/engineered clay secondary liner;

1 m thick natural or constructed soil attenuation layer.

The raw leachate collected within the landfill will be pumped from the primary drainage/leachate

collection system. The potential location and size of leachate pumping station(s) required will

be identified as part of the conceptual design for the preferred landfill footprint. Leachate will

then be directed to treatment facilities in a manner dependent on the preferred leachate

treatment alternative.

5.2.1.2 Leachate Generation Rate

The quantity and rate at which leachate is generated from the landfill are expected to be

important factors in assessing the ability of a specific treatment alternative to manage the

leachate on an ongoing basis. The volume of leachate to be managed will vary over the

operational and post-closure period of the landfill and is influenced by factors including

precipitation, degree of landfill development (e.g., area of landfill that is actively undergoing

development versus areas where final cover has been placed), final cover design and cover

installation progress, and other factors.

For the purposes of describing the proposed leachate treatment alternatives, a series of

leachate generation rates has been calculated based on the following:

Leachate generation rates vary according to the size of the landfill footprint

and the preferred landfill footprint area is approximately 36 ha;

Increased volumes of leachate will be generated during the operating period

for the landfill based upon the area of waste without final cover. The volume

of leachate generated will decrease when the landfill footprint is fully closed;


5-118


The final cover design is reflective of the minimum design specified in O.Reg.

232/98, consisting of 0.6 m of compacted fine-grained soil overlain by a

0.15 m thick vegetative layer in order to limit infiltration to 150 mm/year; and,

Leachate generation rates for the preferred landfill footprint were estimated

using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model for

predicting hydrologic processes, testing the effectiveness of landfill designs,

and assigning groundwater recharge rates. Additional information regarding

the HELP modelling can be found in the Facility Characteristics Report for the

preferred landfill footprint alternative.

Leachate generation rates during the landfill operating period will vary and will be higher than in

the closed state. The approximate maximum leachate generation rate (expressed as an annual

average) during the landfill operating period is estimated to be 5.1 litres per second (L/s). It is

estimated that for the preferred landfill footprint alternative, the maximum leachate generation in

the post closure period will range from 1.8 to 2.7 L/s. To optimize the size of required facilities

and infrastructure, WM intends to manage leachate in a manner that minimizes the volume

generated and is consistent with the volumes projected at closure. For planning purposes, and

the consideration of leachate treatment alternatives, the estimated maximum rate of 5.1 L/s will

be used. The derivation of these leachate generation rates is detailed in the Facility

Characteristics Report.

5.2.1.3 Leachate Quality

Typical leachate characteristics were determined from sampling and analysis of the leachate

currently generated at the existing Ottawa WMF. Table 5-4 provides a summary of frequently

monitored wastewater parameters from several sampling events conducted in late 2009 and

early 2010. Table 5-5 provides a summary of a comprehensive analysis of a leachate sample

collected in January 2010. The leachate quality data are typical of other operating landfill sites

and reflect leachate strength with approximately maximum concentration values, given that the

landfill has been operating since the 1960s.

The analyses of the existing Ottawa WMF leachate illustrate that the leachate contains relatively

high concentrations of chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),

and nitrogen (total Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia). It has a neutral to slightly alkaline pH, and

relative high concentrations of alkalinity. The leachate also contains relatively low

concentrations of several metals and organic compounds.


5-119


Table 5-4 Raw Leachate Characteristics, Conventional and Other Frequently Monitored Parameters

Table 5-5 Raw Leachate Characteristics, January 2010 Comprehensive Analysis

Parameter Units Concentration Parameter Units Concentration

pH std. units 7.5 DETECTED ORGANICS

Phenols-4AAP mg/L 0.22 Phenanthrene g/L 2

Sulphide mg/L 4.2 Naphthalene g/L 10

Total BOD5 mg/L 1,600 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate g/L 65

Total TKN mg/L 1,800 Benzene g/L 6

Total Phosphorus mg/L 12 Chlorobenzene g/L 7

TSS mg/L 140 1,4-Dichlorobenzene g/L 22

Methane mg/L 2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene g/L 6

Methane L/m3 3 Ethylbenzene g/L 40

DETECTED METALS (Total) Toluene g/L 120

Aluminum g/L 1,900 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene g/L 7

Antimony g/L 13 p+m-Xylene g/L 90

Arsenic g/L 63 o-Xylene g/L 40

Boron g/L 16,000 Xylene g/L 130

Cadmium g/L 1 Aroclor 1242 g/L 1.70

Chromium g/L 220 Aroclor 1254 g/L 0.23

Cobalt g/L 87 Aroclor 1260 g/L 0.13

Lead g/L 28 Total PCBs g/L 2.06

Manganese g/L 780

Molybdenum g/L 30

Nickel g/L 320

Tin g/L 48

Titanium g/L 330

Vanadium g/L 47

Zinc g/L 2,400


5-120


5.2.1.4 Leachate Pretreatment

In order to meet applicable regulatory standards and requirements, it may be necessary to

pretreat or fully treat leachate in order to implement various alternative methods to dispose of

leachate. The specific requirements for pretreatment will depend on the leachate quality/quantity

and the preferred leachate treatment alternative. For example, disposing of leachate via

discharge to surface water will require a significantly greater level of pretreatment compared to

disposal via evaporation. The pretreatment process is an interim step in the overall leachate

treatment process but is not capable of being the ultimate method for managing and/or disposing

of the landfill leachate generated. Leachate constituents that may require removal through

pretreatment include oxygen demand as measured by COD (chemical) and BOD (biological);

nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus; individual organic compounds; and metals.

Pretreatment is typically undertaken through biological and physical/chemical processes of which

there are many variations and combinations that can achieve the desired treated effluent quality.

The following is a description of a typical pretreatment process train that might be used

including the primary purpose of each process step. The pretreatment process train that may

be associated with each of the leachate treatment alternatives is shown in the schematic

process flow figure for each alternative in the subsequent section of this document. The most

appropriate pretreatment process train is best identified at the design stage for the preferred

leachate treatment alternative.

Equalization

As described previously, the volume of leachate generated will be influenced by a number of

factors and is expected to fluctuate during the operating life of the landfill. Equalization,

provided by means of a storage tank or pond, allows any fluctuations in leachate generation to

be evened out or balanced to buffer the daily and seasonal high and low leachate flow rates.

The treatment equipment performs most effectively when the leachate flow rate is consistent.

Typically, equalization is sized to provide two to five days of storage at the average leachate

flow rate. Therefore, the required equalization volume would range up to 2,200 cubic meters at

the projected maximum annual average leachate generation rate (i.e., 5.1 L/s). Equalization

can be provided via an above-grade steel tank constructed within secondary containment. A

benefit of a storage tank is that it is enclosed to minimize odour generation at the facility and

heat is retained which is important for biological activity.

Biological Treatment

Aerobic biological treatment is commonly used to reduce concentrations of COD and BOD, as

well as nitrogen compounds from leachate. Microorganisms utilize the organic and nitrogen


5-121


compounds in the leachate as a substrate, or food source, and nutrients such as nitrogen and

phosphorus are used during the metabolism process, and incorporated into the biomass. The

products of the microbial metabolism are carbon dioxide, water, and additional microbial cell

mass. Excess microorganisms must be periodically removed from the system and disposed

either in the landfill or off-site.

A variety of fixed film and suspended growth processes are available to accomplish the

biological treatment process. One of the most common biological processes used for

pretreatment of leachate is a variation of the activated sludge process known as a sequencing

batch reactor, or SBR. This process has been widely used by WM and it provides reliable

treatment for removal of COD, BOD and nitrogen. Treatment takes place in one or more tanks

containing suspended-growth microorganisms. The tank(s) are equipped with mixing and

aeration systems to provide adequate contact between the microorganisms and leachate, and

to provide oxygen necessary to satisfy the microbial requirements for aerobic metabolism of the

organic and nitrogen compounds contained in the leachate.

Leachate is treated in batches, and a control system automatically controls the sequence of

stages that take place during treatment of each batch of leachate, as described below.

Mixed Fill ............ leachate is pumped into the SBR reactor. Mixing is initiated to

enhance the contact between the leachate and the microorganisms.

Aerated Fill ......... aeration is initiated to provide oxygen for the microorganisms.

Aeration .............. aeration continues until treatment objectives for the leachate batch

are met, determined either by treatment time or automated

monitoring of leachate constituents.

Settle ................... aeration and mixing are discontinued, allowing the microorganisms

to settle to the bottom of the SBR reactor.

Decant ................ treated leachate liquid is poured off or decanted from near the surface

of the SBR reactor for further treatment or discharge, leaving the

settled solids to be removed from the bottom of the reactor.

The control system typically allows operator control of the treatment sequence and times for

various stages, providing a great deal of flexibility in treatment to respond to changing leachate

characteristics or treatment objectives.

Nitrification is the biological process used to convert organic and ammonia-nitrogen to oxidized

forms of nitrogen, such as nitrate. The organisms used in the nitrification process are slow-

growing and temperature sensitive; therefore, to ensure adequate treatment during periods of

cold temperatures, it is necessary to provide heating of the leachate to maintain a temperature


5-122


of at least 20C. Heating can be accomplished by recirculating a portion of the leachate and

microorganisms from the SBR reactor through a heat exchanger, through which hot liquid

produced by a boiler is recirculated. The boiler can be fuelled by landfill gas, or alternately by

natural gas, propane, other fuels or heat sources (i.e., waste heat).

Total nitrogen removal can also be accomplished by the SBR process, if necessary, by adding

an anoxic (without oxygen) treatment stage to the sequence. During this stage, denitrifying

microorganisms convert the oxidized nitrogen compounds to nitrogen and oxygen gas.

SBR treatment of leachate usually requires chemical addition of phosphorus to satisfy microbial

nutrient requirements, and polymer to assist in settling of the biomass. Alkalinity may also need

to be added at times to support the nitrification process if inadequate alkalinity is available in the

leachate.

In addition to removing most of the COD, BOD and nitrogen compounds, the aerobic biological

treatment will remove most of the individual organic compounds present in the leachate. In

addition, some removal of metals will occur through adsorption to the biomass which is

ultimately removed from the system for disposal. Some of the COD is comprised of compounds

which may be recalcitrant to biological treatment and it is expected that some concentration of

COD will remain in the aerobic biological reactor effluent.

Chemical Treatment

Chemical treatment will be required if concentrations of metals in excess of discharge

requirements remain after biological treatment. If necessary, chemicals would be added to

pretreated leachate in one or more tanks containing mixers to accomplish precipitation of metal

salts. Chemical additives including sodium hydroxide, lime, or other caustic or corrosive

chemicals could be used to increase the pH of the leachate and cause precipitation of metal

hydroxides. Other metal salts such as ferric chloride and organic-based polymers could be

used in the process to enhance floc formation and metals removal.

Filtration

After chemical treatment, filtration is required to remove precipitated metal salts from the treated

leachate. Filtration can be accomplished via granular media filters, cloth media filters, or low

pressure membrane filtration. Each form of filtration includes media through which the treated

leachate passes; the media allows the liquid to pass through, but retains much or all of the

precipitated solids. Depending on the type of filtration, solids which build up in the media over

time are periodically removed by backwashing, and the backwash waste may require further

treatment prior to disposal.


5-123


Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis is a membrane filtration technology used to remove dissolved inorganic

compounds, as well as larger organic molecules. This technology involves passing the treated,

filtered leachate through reverse osmosis membranes at relatively high pressure. Treated

leachate flows through the membranes under pressure, while dissolved salts are retained. The

dissolved salts are removed from the process as reject water, and this stream can constitute a

relatively high-volume waste stream that may require further treatment.

Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption

Granular activated carbon adsorption is a filtration process that utilizes granular activated

carbon contained in filter vessels. Treated leachate would be passed through the beds of

carbon, and organic compounds remaining in the leachate would be retained by the carbon

through adsorption. The organic compounds build up in the carbon after a period of time, and

when the adsorptive capacity of the carbon is reached, it must be replaced and the spent

carbon must be either re-activated or disposed. This process would be required only if

remaining concentrations of compounds contributing to recalcitrant COD must be removed.

Other technologies, such as catalyzed chemical oxidation, may also provide the necessary

degree of treatment, and the final technology selection would be made based on an assessment

of the organic compounds to be removed and an analysis to determine the most effective

means.

5.2.2 Description of Leachate Treatment Alternatives

A range of alternatives for managing leachate disposal are potentially available. The following

provides a brief description of the five leachate treatment alternatives for disposal of leachate

identified by WM for assessment as part of the EA. WM has operating experience with these

five alternatives and has operated them effectively at other landfill sites across North America

for the disposal of leachate. A more detailed description of each alternative including a process

schematic of the alternative along with feasibility and reliability, regulatory, environmental and

cost considerations, are presented in the following subsections.

1. On-site Tree Irrigation

This alternative would involve irrigation of trees (typically poplar and/or willow) in order to

dispose of the leachate. This alternative may require partial or full on-site treatment using

chemical and/or biological processes to treat the leachate prior to irrigation. The treated

leachate will be stored in a pond and then discharged to a tree plantation during days with

suitable weather conditions. No liquid effluent would leave the WCEC site.


5-124


2. On-site Leachate Evaporation

This alternative would involve use of evaporator technology to dispose of leachate.

Leachate from the landfill would be pumped to an equalization tank that will provide

storage to handle peaks in leachate generation. The leachate would then be fed to the

evaporator for processing. The evaporator system may utilize landfill gas as the energy

source to evaporate the leachate or waste heat from the landfill gas co-generation facility.

Depending upon the strength of the leachate and the resulting air quality emissions, the

leachate may have to be pretreated using a chemical and/or biological process prior to

evaporation. These units have been widely used in the U.S. for a number of years for

leachate disposal.

3. Off-site Effluent Discharge to Surface Water

This alternative would involve disposal of fully treated leachate by discharging it to a

nearby surface watercourse. Collected leachate would be treated on-site using chemical

and/or biological processes to meet Ontario Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO)

followed by storage of the treated effluent. The stored effluent would then be discharged

to a surface watercourse. The nearest surface watercourse is the southern branch of the

Huntley Creek which drains to the Carp River.

4. Off-site Effluent Discharge to City of Ottawa Sanitary Sewer

This alternative would involve disposal of leachate to the City of Ottawa sanitary sewer

system. The collected leachate may require pretreatment on-site using either chemical

and/or biological processes in order to meet the City’s sewer use by-law. The leachate

effluent would then be discharged to an existing forcemain at Carp Road and

Highway 417. The effluent would be further treated at the City’s Robert O. Pickard

Environmental Centre (ROPEC) facility.

5. Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant

This alternative would involve trucking of the leachate to one or more wastewater

treatment plants outside Ottawa for disposal. The collected leachate may require

pretreatment using chemical and/or biological processes if required to meet the quality

parameters of the receiving wastewater treatment plant(s).

5.2.2.1 On-site Tree Irrigation

This alternative relies on trees (typically poplars and/or willows) to uptake leachate to satisfy the

plants’ requirements for moisture and nutrients, and thereby eliminates any off-site discharge of


5-125


leachate for disposal. Since the growth season of the trees is limited to certain times of the year

(May to October), storage of leachate will be required during non-growing times.

WM utilizes poplar trees for leachate treatment and disposal at other facilities in Ontario.

Depending on where the trees are planted (on top of a landfilled area or not) it may be

necessary to provide full treatment or some level of pretreatment of the leachate prior to

application to the trees to achieve background groundwater concentrations. Assuming the trees

are not planted on waste at the WCEC, biological treatment and physical/chemical treatment for

metals removal would be required to achieve the standards for groundwater discharge. The

biological treatment system would include equalization followed by activated sludge treatment

using a sequencing batch reactor for removal of organic and nitrogen compounds. Some

removal of metals may be achieved via oxidation and adsorption in the sequencing batch

reactor process. Residual metals could be removed via chemical treatment and filtration using

granular media or low pressure membrane filtration. These processes were described earlier in

Section 5.2.1.4.

Typically the application rate for leachate to a tree plantation is determined based on the

micronutrient chemical parameters of the treated leachate. An adequate planting area is

required to allow for irrigation of all of the leachate that is generated during the year. For trees,

the area is dictated by the expected annual uptake of leachate during the growing season. The

area required for the trees is estimated to be approximately 8 hectares for the projected

maximum annual average leachate generation rate. Calculations to determine the approximate

area required for uptake of leachate by poplar trees are included in Supporting Document #3

(Appendix A).

For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that six months of storage volume would be

required to store pretreated leachate during weather conditions (i.e., non-growing season) that

would prevent the application of leachate to the trees. A large storage pond with an

approximate volume of 81,000 cubic meters would therefore be required to provide six months

of pretreated leachate storage at the approximate maximum annual average leachate

generation rate (5.1 L/s). The calculations used to determine the size of the storage pond are

included in Supporting Document #3 (Appendix A).

A schematic of a treatment system utilizing tree irrigation for leachate disposal is provided in

Figure 5-34. It should be noted that some of the treatment process steps shown may not be

required based on site-specific requirements.


5-126


Figure 5-34 On-Site Tree Irrigation


5-127


Feasibility and Reliability

This alternative would require a relatively large amount of property for the leachate storage

pond and for the trees (i.e., about 8 ha or approximately one quarter the area of the preferred

landfill footprint) to be irrigated. The treed area required could be developed as a single area or

multiple areas both on-site and /or off-site pending final design of new landfill footprint. This will

be identified in the Detailed Impact Assessment section of the EA.

If treatment of the leachate is required for removal of organics and metals prior to irrigation, the

treatment system will be relatively complex and require implementation of chemical and/or

biological processes.

The winter storage requirements make this alternative unreliable as a single approach to meet

the ongoing leachate disposal requirements in a consistent manner.

Regulatory Considerations

Approval, as part of the landfill Certificate of Approval (C of A), will be required to allow irrigation

of trees. A C of A (Air) may also be required for a typical pretreatment process, if necessary. In

the event that the tree plantation is located off-site, the receiving site is expected to require

additional approval from the MOE.

Environmental Considerations

Leachate will be treated prior to irrigation and the application rate will be controlled to ensure

that over irrigation of plantation or runoff to surface water does not occur. There may be a need

to remove existing vegetation to accommodate the new plantation. Visual screening of the site

may be provided by the plantation. On-site truck movements related to management of

residuals may result in some limited dust, combustion and noise emissions.

Capital and Operating Costs

The capital cost of this alternative is expected to be relatively high, due to the large property

requirement associated with the leachate storage pond and area for tree irrigation, as well as

the relatively complex level of treatment that may be required prior to irrigation. If basic

biological treatment is required, the operational and maintenance cost will be modest, but if a

high degree of treatment is required, including physical/chemical treatment for metals removal,

the operational and maintenance cost will be relatively high due to chemical, energy, and

equipment maintenance costs.


5-128


5.2.3 On-site Leachate Evaporation

Under this alternative, collected leachate would be stored to provide equalization of peak day

flows, and then treated with on-site evaporation equipment to reduce the leachate volume to a

small amount of residual solids that could be disposed in the landfill, or hauled off-site for

disposal. Leachate storage would be provided by an above-grade, steel tank constructed within

a containment area which will also minimize any odours from the untreated leachate. Typically,

storage volumes are provided to contain two to five days of average leachate production, which

could range up to 2,200 cubic meters for the estimated maximum annual average leachate

generation rate.

Pretreatment of the leachate may be required prior to the evaporation process. The

requirement for pretreatment is dependent on the concentration of various chemical parameters

which may damage the evaporator equipment or create air emission standards exceedances

including odours. The types of biological and/or chemical treatment technologies that may be

required were described earlier in section 5.2.1.4.

Various forms of leachate evaporators are available on the market. Simple evaporator systems

utilize direct injection of combustion gases into an evaporator vessel containing leachate. The

resulting vapours may be directly discharged to the atmosphere, or may require further

treatment via thermal oxidation to reduce concentrations of volatile organic compounds, if

necessary, to meet air emission regulatory requirements. Emissions are dependent upon the

specific leachate characteristics. Estimates of mass annual emissions are provided in Table 5-

6 for the prevalent volatile organic compounds present in the leachate. These estimates

assume no pretreatment of leachate is undertaken.

Table 5-6 Estimated Air Emissions*, On-Site Evaporator Treatment

Parameter Units Estimated Emissions

Benzene kg/yr 0.965

Chlorobenzene kg/yr 1.126

1,4-Dichlorobenzene kg/yr 3.538

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene kg/yr 0.965

Ethylbenzene kg/yr 6.433

Toluene kg/yr 19.300

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene kg/yr 1.126

p+m-Xylene kg/yr 14.475

o-Xylene kg/yr 6.433

Xylene kg/yr 20.908

Note: * based on data from January 2010 Comprehensive Analysis


5-129


Residual dissolved solids in a small amount of water remain after evaporation, and typically are

continuously withdrawn from the evaporation system to prevent excessive build-up and potential

fouling of the evaporator surfaces. A clarifier can be used to provide further separation of the

solids, and the overflow from the clarifier is returned to the evaporator for treatment. The

quantity of residual solids is dependent on the leachate characteristics, but is typically

approximately 3 to 5 percent of the initial leachate volume, or about 13 to 22 cubic meters per

day. The solids could be disposed in the landfill, or could be hauled off-site for disposal.

If available, landfill gas may be used to heat the leachate. If landfill gas is not available, or is

available in insufficient quantities, the heating fuel can be supplemented with natural gas,

propane, or other fuels. Since leachate is comprised primarily of water, the energy requirement

associated with evaporating leachate is very high compared to other treatment alternatives.

A schematic of a typical leachate evaporator system is provided in Figure 5-35.


Many forms of evaporators are available and provide reliable treatment. Due to the high-

temperature operation and matrix of typical leachates, frequent maintenance and/or

replacement of the evaporator equipment may be necessary. Leachate typically contains

relatively high concentrations of salts, which contribute to a corrosive environment exacerbated

by the presence of high temperatures. Leachate also typically contains high concentrations of

other dissolved solids such as calcium and magnesium which, when concentrated in the

evaporator, can contribute to scaling of the evaporator surfaces and may decrease the

equipment’s effectiveness and require cleaning.

The evaporator system has a relatively small footprint, and should be relatively simple to site at

the facility. Proximity to the source of landfill gas, if available, is an important consideration to

reduce the amount of gas pipeline required to reach the evaporator system. The evaporator will

have a visible combustion stack and vapour plume and should be located on-site to minimize

visual impact.


Heating of the leachate will result in the formation of water vapour, as well as volatilization of

some organic constituents contained in the leachate. A Certificate of Approval (Air) will be

required for the air emissions from the evaporator system and potentially the pretreatment

process, if required. Treatment of the evaporation emissions utilizing technology such as

thermal oxidation or adsorption may be required to meet air emissions discharge limits.


5-130


Figure 5-35 On-Site Leachate Evaporation


5-131



Evaporation of untreated leachate may have some potential for low concentration emissions of

volatile organic compounds and odours. These emissions will be discharged via a visible stack

with a steam plume. There will be no discharges to groundwater or surface water. On-site truck

movements related to management of residuals may result in some limited dust, combustion

and noise emissions.


The evaporator system is complex, and the up-front cost is relatively high. Capital costs will

increase based on the need for any pretreatment or air emissions treatment systems. If landfill

gas is available as a fuel source, the operating cost can be relatively low; however, the lost

value of the landfill gas for other sources of energy production must also be considered. If other

fuel sources must be used, the energy cost associated with leachate evaporation is very high.

Typical operation and maintenance labour costs are expected to be relatively moderate, but

may increase if maintenance problems with corrosivity and/or scaling occur or if pretreatment of

leachate is required.

5.2.4 Off-site Effluent Discharge to Surface Water

This alternative relies on having access to a surface watercourse suitable for receiving fully

treated leachate. Effectively, the treated leachate is disposed in the watercourse with no further

treatment. Potential surface water discharge locations for treated leachate, in proximity to the

WCEC, include the Huntley Creek or Carp River. The southern branch of the Huntley Creek (or

the South Huntley Creek) would be closest in proximity to the discharge point from the site (i.e.,

minimum of 500 metres depending on the location of the discharge point), with the Huntley

Creek and Carp River farther downstream (see Figure 5-1). The leachate may need to be fully

treated on-site in order to meet the PWQO. The treated leachate could then be discharged to

the roadside ditch along Carp Road, which drains to the South Huntley Creek. However, the

ditch conditions vary throughout the year and include extended periods of no or low flow to

frozen in the winter and would not have any assimilative capacity during substantial portions of

the year. The treated leachate would have to be stored on-site and then discharged at

appropriate times of the year to optimise any assimilative capacity of the receiving waters.

Similar to the tree irrigation alternative, pond storage for as much as 81,000 cubic meters of

pretreated leachate may be necessary.

Alternatively, the treated leachate could be pumped via a new forcemain to the selected

receiving water body for discharge. The assimilative capacity of the potential receiving water

bodies would need to be established to confirm that treated leachate could be discharged


5-132


without environmental harm. Supporting documentation for the Carp River restoration project

(Post-Development Flow and Characteristics and Flood Level Analysis for Carp River, Feedmill

Creek and Poole Creek – CH2MHill 2006) notes that there are extensive periods during the

summer when flows at surface water locations along Richardson Side Road and Huntmar Drive

are minimal, and there is no sustained baseflow. Monitoring performed by AECOM in 2006

documented flows in South Huntley Creek at two locations near the intersection of Carp Road

and Richardson Side Road ranging from 1 to 114 L/s, and 12 to 109 L/s, respectively.

Additional monitoring in 2011 has identified extended periods during which there is no flow in

South Huntley Creek. This no flow condition is consistent with other observations made in the

area with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority declaring a low water condition in their

watershed and noting that the water level in the Ottawa River is presently close to the lowest

recorded since 1950. At the projected typical maximum annual average leachate flow rate of

5.1 L/s, the leachate discharge could account for all, or a significant portion of the flow in the

South Huntley Creek. It is therefore expected that the assimilative capacity of South Huntley

Creek will be limited or non-existent.

Water quality monitoring performed for the South Huntley Creek, in 2006, indicated that PWQO

were not met within the creek for several parameters including Total Phosphorus, Iron and

Ammonia. Insufficient flow in South Huntley Creek in 2011 prevented the collection of water

quality data for the majority of the year. Data was available in late September and October and

monitoring results showed water quality in South Huntley Creek varying from poor to moderate.

Based on the relatively low flow of water through the South Huntley Creek as well as the

identified water quality issues, it is expected that a very high level of treatment will be required

to achieve water quality standards for off-site discharge. It is also possible that discharge may

not be permitted at all given that water quality standards have historically not been met in the

watercourse.

The nearest receiving watercourse with potential for sufficient permanent flow would be the

Carp River, downstream of its confluence with Huntley Creek, approximately 5 kilometres from

the proposed new landfill footprint.

The high degree of treatment will require a combination of biological and physical/chemical

processes. The process train required to fully treat the leachate to support discharge of effluent

off-site to a surface watercourse is expected to include all of the steps identified in section

5.2.1.4.

A schematic of a leachate treatment system that may be suitable for off-site discharge to

surface water is provided in Figure 5-36.


5-133


Figure 5-36 Off-site Effluent Discharge to Surface Water


5-134



The leachate treatment processes required to discharge to a local surface watercourse

represents a highly complex system that will require a high level of operator attention and

maintenance. The technologies are well-proven for treating wastewater and reliable in

achieving water quality requirements, given proper operation. However, due to the unique and

changing characteristics of landfill leachate, and the very limited assimilative capacity of the

potential downstream receiving watercourses, the reliability of this alternative is uncertain. Due

to the need to meet PWQO for discharge and the almost non-existent assimilative flow in the

Carp Road ditch, treated leachate would need to be conveyed by forcemain to the nearest

appropriate receiving watercourse, which is the Carp River, located approximately 5 kilometres

away. WM’s inability to construct a forcemain of this distance, involving numerous properties

which they do not own, and the uncertainty of obtaining the required approvals (e.g., MOE,

MNR, MVCA), make this alternative largely unfeasible.

Due to the number of treatment processes that may need to be combined to achieve PWQO

standards prior to discharge and the storage of treated leachate, the space requirement for this

alternative is expected to be moderately larger in comparison to most of the other leachate

treatment alternatives.


An Ontario Water Resources Act C of A will be required for discharge of the treated leachate to

the potential receiving surface watercourse. It is expected that very stringent discharge

requirements will be required due to the expected low assimilative capacity and existing water

quality in the potential candidate receiving water bodies. A C of A (Air) may also be required

depending on the on-site treatment process.


Leachate will require full treatment prior to being discharged off-site to surface water. The

closest potential receiving watercourses may include man-made (i.e., Carp Road ditch) or

natural (i.e., South Huntley Creek) systems. These systems typically have no flow or very low

flow in areas in close proximity to the site. On-site truck movements related to management of

residuals may result in some limited dust, combustion and noise emissions.


Both the capital and operating costs for this leachate alternative are expected to be relatively

high, as a result of the large number of treatment processes and associated energy, chemical,

maintenance and testing, possible waste disposal requirements, and potential requirement for a

forcemain.


5-135


5.2.5 Off-site Effluent Discharge to City of Ottawa Sanitary Sewer

Off-site discharge of leachate to the City of Ottawa sanitary sewer is the method currently being

used for disposing leachate from the existing Ottawa WMF. Under this alternative, equalization

would be provided to buffer the low and high leachate flows, from the new landfill footprint, that

are experienced on a daily and seasonal basis. As described in the alternatives above, it is

typical to provide two to five days of storage for the average projected leachate flow, which

would result in a volume of up to 2,200 cubic meters.

Leachate would be pretreated with aerobic biological treatment utilizing a SBR reactor to

remove concentrations of COD, BOD, and ammonia-nitrogen and comply with City of Ottawa

sanitary sewer discharge requirements. The SBR technology is described earlier in section 2.4.

Pretreated leachate would be discharged to the existing forcemain at Carp Road and Highway

417 (see Figure 5-1) for further treatment at the City’s ROPEC facility.

The projected capacity of the SBR reactor required for the new landfill footprint would have an

anticipated volume of up to approximately 2,750 cubic meters, if based on the estimated

maximum annual average leachate generation rate. It will be necessary to provide tankage for

equalization and storage of waste biomass, as well as boiler/heat exchanger capacity.

A schematic of a pretreatment system suitable for treatment of leachate to comply with sanitary

sewer discharge requirements is provided in Figure 5-37.


Aerobic biological treatment of leachate via SBR technology is well-proven and reliable, and has

been used by WM at numerous other landfill sites. The automated technology allows for

process adjustments to be made in response to changing leachate characteristics and/or

discharge requirements, and minimizes the need for operator attention and intervention. Waste

biomass generated by treatment can typically be disposed of in the landfill or off-site.

After pretreatment, the leachate characteristics are similar to those of domestic wastewater and

will meet the City’s Sewer Use By-law. The City’s ROPEC facility has significant treatment

capacity in comparison to the expected load from the WCEC pretreated leachate, and therefore

the leachate is expected to have minimal impact to the municipal wastewater treatment facility.


5-136


Figure 5-37 Off-site Effluent Discharge to City of Ottawa Sanitary Sewer


5-137



Pretreatment of leachate with sanitary sewer discharge will require the approval of, and an

agreement with, the City of Ottawa. The discharge will need to comply with the City’s Sewer

Use By-Law. A C of A (Air) may also be required for the pretreatment process.


Leachate will be pretreated prior to direct discharge to the sanitary sewer with no potential for

contact with groundwater or surface water. The treated leachate will meet sewer use

requirements and not affect surface water quality. On-site truck movements related to

management of residuals may result in some limited dust, combustion and noise emissions.


The capital and operating costs of this alternative are expected to be moderate, and lower than

the capital and operating costs of most of the other alternatives under consideration. The cost

for discharge of the pretreated leachate to the City of Ottawa’s sanitary sewer system is a

component of the operating costs.

5.2.6 Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant

This alternative would involve storing the collected leachate and then hauling it to one or more

alternative wastewater treatment plants, other than the City of Ottawa’s ROPEC facility. The

available capacity of one or more wastewater treatment plants to accept the leachate would

need to be determined, and approval for the hauled discharge(s) would need to be sought.

Depending on the receiving wastewater treatment plant, the leachate may or may not require

pretreatment. If pretreatment is required, this alternative would likely involve the same leachate

pretreatment system as described in section 5.2.1.4, depending on the specific requirements of

the receiving wastewater treatment plant.

Leachate would need to be stored on-site to provide capacity for days when trucks are unable to

haul, or in the event the wastewater treatment plant(s) is unable to accept leachate. In addition,

storage may need to be constructed at the wastewater treatment plant location(s) to allow for

consistent dosing of the leachate to the treatment facility. The availability of leachate storage at

the treatment plant site is critical in the scenario where it receives untreated leachate, as

consistent dosing of untreated leachate is important to avoid treatment plant upsets.

It is expected that approximately 15 truckloads of leachate (30 cubic meters each) may need to

be hauled daily, based on the projected maximum annual average leachate generation rate.

A schematic of a leachate pretreatment system for hauling of pretreated leachate to off-site

wastewater treatment facilities for disposal is provided in Figure 5-38.


5-138


Figure 5-38 Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant


5-139



As described previously, SBR treatment of leachate is well-proven and reliable in achieving

discharge standards required by most municipal wastewater treatment authorities. Hauling of

leachate is a common industry practice and is reliant on availability of suitable trucking

equipment and drivers, and with the potential to be impacted slightly by adverse weather

conditions.

The reliability of this alternative is also influenced by the capacity and operation of the

wastewater treatment plant(s) to which the leachate is hauled and discharged. Smaller

wastewater treatment facilities may experience load restrictions and/or process upsets which

may prevent the discharge of leachate at the generated volumes and during certain periods of

time. WM may need to rely on more than one wastewater treatment plant to manage the

volumes of leachate generated to ensure the reliability of this alternative.


Pretreatment of leachate with hauling and discharge to one or more wastewater treatment

facilities will require the approval of, and a permit from, municipal wastewater authorities to

which the leachate will be discharged, and proper manifesting of hauled loads. A C of A (Air)

may also be required for the pretreatment process.


Leachate will be pretreated prior to truck haulage off-site to meet the receiver’s facility

requirements and not affect surface water quality. There is no potential for contact with

groundwater or surface water. On-site truck movements related to management of residuals

may result in some limited dust, combustion and noise emissions. The requirement for

approximately 15 tanker trucks per day entering the site and then leaving loaded may affect

traffic on Carp Road.


Costs associated with this alternative include the cost for hauling of leachate to one or more

wastewater treatment facilities, as well as the cost for disposal of the leachate at the facilities.

The capital and operating costs associated with leachate pretreatment, if required as described

under this alternative, are expected to be moderate. The hauling cost can be significant, and

may be higher than the cost for pretreatment, if needed, depending upon the distance which the

leachate must be transported.


5-140


5.2.7 Evaluation of Leachate Treatment Alternatives

This section describes the evaluation methodology used to compare the leachate treatment

alternatives to one another. It details results of the comparative evaluation, including a rationale

for ranking of alternatives, and identifies a preferred leachate treatment alternative for the

disposal of leachate.

As indicated previously, at this stage the leachate treatment alternatives have been described to

a conceptual level of detail, focused primarily on the characteristics used to differentiate the

alternatives from one another in order to facilitate the comparative analysis. The preferred

leachate treatment alternative will be described in further detail as part of the detailed impact

assessment of the undertaking.

5.2.8 Evaluation Methodology

The comparative evaluation of leachate treatment alternatives was completed using a

“Reasoned Argument” or “Trade-off” method, as provided for in the approved ToR. This method

is based on the following two activities:

1. Identify the predicted level of effect (‘No Net Effect’, ‘Low Net Effect’,

‘Moderate Net Effect’ or ‘High Net Effect’) associated with each alternative

for each indicator; and,

2. Rank each alternative from most preferred to least preferred based on the

predicted level of effect at the criteria and environmental component level

in order to determine an overall ranking for each alternative.

Criteria and indicators under the following environmental components were selected in order to

comparatively evaluate the leachate treatment alternatives (see Table 5-7 for a full list of

criteria):

Atmospheric Environment

Geology and Hydrogeology


Biology

Transportation

Land Use

Social

Site Design and Operations


5-141


Table 5-7 Comparative Evaluation of Leachate Treatment Alternatives

Environmental Component

Criteria Indicators

Leachate Treatment Alternatives

Option #1

On-site Tree Irrigation

Net Effects

Option #2

On-site Leachate Evaporation

Net Effects

Option #3

Off-site Effluent Discharge to Surface Water

Net Effects

Option #4

Off-site Effluent Discharge to City of Ottawa Sanitary Sewer

Net Effects

Option #5

Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant

Net Effects

Atmospheric

Environment

Odour Predicted odour

emissions.

None as leachate storage pond contains only

treated leachate.

NO NET EFFECTS

None as there is no open storage of leachate.

None as leachate is either pretreated prior to

evaporation or evaporated emissions are

treated to meet discharge limits.

NO NET EFFECTS

None as leachate storage pond contains only

treated leachate.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential

properties, public facilities, businesses and institutions).

No off-site effects predicted.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

Criteria Rationale All options are preferred as there are no net effects predicted for odour emissions.

Air Quality Predicted air emissions. Emissions from leachate pretreatment

process that would require CofA (Air).

LOW NET EFFECTS

Emissions from leachate pretreatment


Emissions from evaporation process that

would require CofA (Air).

LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS

Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential

properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions).


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

Criteria Rationale Options 1, 3, 4, and 5 are most preferred as there are no to low net effects predicted for air emissions. Option 2 also has no to low predicted net effects;

however, ranks 2nd because this leachate treatment process includes two sources of emissions (pretreatment and evaporation).

Predicted dust emissions.

Emissions from haulage of residual sludge from leachate treatment facility to the landfill

for disposal (on-site).

LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS

Emissions from haulage of residual sludge from leachate treatment facility to the landfill for disposal (on-site) as well as from haulage

of pre-treated leachate to a wastewater treatment plant (off-site).


Number of off-site receptors potentially

affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses,

and institutions).


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Potential to affect off-site receptors.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 2nd

Criteria Rationale Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are most preferred as there are no or low net effects predicted for dust emissions.


5-142




Criteria Indicators


Option #1


Net Effects

Option #2


Net Effects

Option #3


Net Effects

Option #4


Net Effects

Option #5


Net Effects

Predicted combustion emissions.



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS






NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are most preferred as there are no or low net effects predicted for combustion emissions.

Noise Predicted site-related noise.



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS






NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are most preferred as there are low net effects predicted for noise emissions.

Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 1st 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 3rd

RATIONALE Options 1, 3, and 4 are ranked first from an Atmospheric component perspective because they have the lowest effects on off-site receptors relating to odour, air, dust, combustion and noise emissions. Option 2 placed in second due to impacts in relation to air emissions, and Option 5 placed in third due to its effects in relation to dust, combustion, and noise emissions.

Geology & Hydrogeology

Groundwater Quality

Predicted effects to groundwater quality at property boundaries and off-site.

Treated leachate applied to trees not planted on waste.

Equalization tanks enclosed and only treated leachate stored in pond, therefore no contact

with groundwater.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Equalization tanks enclosed and only treated leachate stored in tank, therefore no contact

with groundwater.

NO NET EFFECTS

Equalization tanks enclosed and only treated leachate stored in pond, therefore no contact

with groundwater.

NO NET EFFECTS


with groundwater.

NO NET EFFECTS


with groundwater.

NO NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

Criteria Rationale Options 2, 3, 4, and 5 are most preferred as there are no net effects predicted for groundwater quality.

Groundwater Flow

Predicted groundwater flow characteristics.

No potential leachate contact with groundwater.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the options in relation to groundwater flow. All options rank the same.

Environmental Component Ranking 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

RATIONALE Options 2, 3, 4, and 5 are ranked first from a Geology and Hydrogeology perspective because they have no effect on groundwater quality or flow. Option 1 has a low net effect in relation to groundwater quality as treated leachate will be applied to trees for irrigation.


5-143




Criteria Indicators


Option #1


Net Effects

Option #2


Net Effects

Option #3


Net Effects

Option #4


Net Effects

Option #5


Net Effects

Surface Water

Resources

Surface Water

Quality

Predicted effects on

surface water quality on-site and off-site.

Leachate treated prior to irrigation, therefore

no potential leachate contact with surface water.

LOW NET EFFECTS

No potential leachate contact with surface

water.

NO NET EFFECTS

Ontario Water Resources Act CofA would be

required for discharge to receiving watercourse.

Assumes assimilative capacity of surface water (i.e., Huntley Creek or Carp River) will

be affected by effluent discharge (i.e., quality).


Leachate pre-treated to Sewer Use Bylaw

standards prior to discharge to sewer/sewage treatment plant.

NO NET EFFECTS

No potential leachate contact with surface

water.

NO NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 2nd Tied for 1st 3rd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

Criteria Rationale Options 2, 4, and 5 are ranked first as they

do not impact surface water quality.

Surface Water Quantity

Change in drainage areas.

Assumes construction of leachate storage pond will alter local drainage patterns.

LOW NET EFFECTS

No change in drainage areas.

NO NET EFFECTS

Assumes construction of leachate storage pond will alter local drainage patterns.

LOW NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Predicted occurrence and degree of off-site effects.

No off-site release of leachate.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Ontario Water Resources Act CofA would be required for discharge to receiving

watercourse.

Assumes assimilative capacity of surface

water (i.e., Huntley Creek or Carp River) will




NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale Options 2, 4, and 5 are ranked first as they do not impact surface water quantity.

Environmental Component Ranking 2nd Tied for 1st 3rd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

RATIONALE Options 2, 4, and 5 are ranked first from a surface water perspective as they do not impact surface water quality or quantity.

Biology (including

Terrestrial and

Aquatic environment)

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Predicted impact on vegetation communities due to project.

Potential removal of existing vegetation community and replacement with tree

plantation.

LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS

No removal of vegetation.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to

project.

Potential removal of existing vegetation community and replacement with tree

plantation.



NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Predicted impact of project on vegetation and wildlife including

rare, threatened or endangered species.

Pretreatment facilities located near existing landfill infrastructure and tree plantation located on open land adjacent to landfill

footprint.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Pretreatment facilities located near existing landfill infrastructure.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS

Criteria Ranking: 1st Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd

Criteria Rationale Option 1 ranks first as the planting of trees would have a positive effect on vegetation communities.


5-144




Criteria Indicators


Option #1


Net Effects

Option #2


Net Effects

Option #3


Net Effects

Option #4


Net Effects

Option #5


Net Effects

Aquatic Ecosystems

Predicted changes in water quality.

Leachate treated prior to irrigation, therefore no potential leachate contact with surface

water.

LOW NET EFFECTS

No potential leachate contact with surface water.

NO NET EFFECTS




Leachate pre-treated to sewer Bylaw standards prior to discharge to sewer/sewage

treatment plant.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Predicted impact on aquatic habitat due to project.


water.

LOW NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS





treatment plant.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Predicted impact on aquatic biota due to project.


water.

LOW NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS





treatment plant.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale Options 2, 4, and 5 are ranked as first because they do not impact the aquatic ecosystem.

Environmental Component Ranking 1st Tied for 2nd 3rd Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd

RATIONALE Option 1 ranks first in relation to Biology as the planting of trees would have a positive impact on vegetation communities and would result in low net effects in relation to the aquatic environment. Options 2, 4, and 5 are tied for second place as they have low or no effect on the terrestrial environment and no impact in relation to the aquatic environment.

Transportation Effects from Truck Transport Along Access

Roads

Potential for traffic collisions.

No off-site truck haulage.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Approximately 15 truckloads of pre-treated leachate anticipated daily.


Disturbance to traffic operations.


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Approximately 15 truckloads of pre-treated leachate anticipated daily.


Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 2nd

RATIONALE Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are tied for first from a transportation perspective as they do no impact traffic collisions or operations.

Land Use Effects on Current and

Planned Future Land Uses

Current land use. On-site facilities may require site plan approval from the City of Ottawa.

LOW NET EFFECTS

On-site facilities may require site plan approval from the City of Ottawa.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS

Planned future land use.

No impact on planned future land use.

LOW NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale Options 2, 3, 4, and 5 are tied for first as they have low effects in relation to land use and no impact on future land use.

Displacement of Agricultural

Land

Current land use. Potential to remove agricultural land.

LOW NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Predicted impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


Criteria Rationale Options 2, 3, 4, and 5 are tied for first as they have no impact on agricultural land.

Environmental Component Ranking 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

RATIONALE Options 2, 3, 4, and 5 are tied for first from a land use perspective, as they have low to no effect in relation to current or future land use and no impact on agricultural land.


5-145




Criteria Indicators


Option #1


Net Effects

Option #2


Net Effects

Option #3


Net Effects

Option #4


Net Effects

Option #5


Net Effects

Social Visual Impact

of the Facility

Predicted changes in

perceptions of landscapes and views.

Tree plantation may obstruct the view of

the landfill.


Pretreatment and facilities near existing

landfill infrastructure. Evaporator will include a stack which may be at visible height. There

may also be a visible steam plume.



landfill infrastructure. No noticeable change in current views expected.

LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS



LOW NET EFFECTS

Environmental Component Ranking 1st 3rd Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd

RATIONALE Option 1 is ranked first as the planting of trees will result in a positive effect on the visual environment.

Site Design &

Operations

Site Design and

Operations Characteristics

Complexity of site

infrastructure.

Relatively high capital cost and moderate to

high operating cost.

HIGH NET EFFECTS

Relatively high capital and moderate operating

costs.


Relatively high capital and high operating

costs.

HIGH NET EFFECTS

Moderate capital and operating costs.


Moderate capital and high operating costs

with trucking.


Operational flexibility. LOW NET EFFECTS LOW NET EFFECTS LOW NET EFFECTS LOW NET EFFECTS LOW NET EFFECTS

Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

RATIONALE Options 2, 4, and 5 are tied for first from a site design and operations perspective, as they have moderate effects in relation to complexity of site infrastructure and low effects in relation to operational flexibility.

OVERALL RANKING & RATIONALE Tied for 2nd

Tied for 2nd

4th

1st

3rd


5-146


The proposed evaluation criteria and indicators were presented at Open House #3 for public

comment. The proposed evaluation criteria and indicators, and evaluation methodology were also

presented and discussed during workshop #3. Based on the evaluation criteria and indicators, the

net effect(s) resulting from the implementation of each of the five leachate treatment alternatives

were predicted at the indicator level, with the assumption that appropriate mitigation measures

would be put in place. The net effects were then used to compare the leachate treatment

alternatives to one another. The results of this comparison are detailed in Table 5-7.

5.2.9 Evaluation Results

The results of the net effects evaluation of the leachate treatment alternatives in Table 5-7

below are summarized for each individual leachate treatment alternative in the following

subsections. In this evaluation, the implementation of each leachate treatment alternative was

considered in a stand-alone capacity.

5.2.10 Option #1 – On-site Tree Irrigation

The implementation of Option #1 – On-site Tree Irrigation would result in no to low net effects

with respect to odour, air quality, noise, groundwater, surface water, aquatic environment,

transportation, and land use. There would be a slight positive net effect in terms of the terrestrial

and visual environments, as the planting of trees would potentially increase the amount of

vegetation within the study area, and thus the available wildlife habitat, and would also partially

obscure the view of the landfill.

There is a relatively high capital cost and a moderate to high operating cost associated with the

implementation of this leachate treatment alternative. If implemented, approximately 8 hectares

of land would be required for the tree plantation in order to accommodate the rate of leachate

production from the landfill. As the growing season for trees is limited to certain times of the

year (May to October), storage of leachate would be required during winter months, decreasing

overall reliability of this approach. The capacity to store leachate during freezing conditions or

other weather conditions that would prevent the application of leachate to the trees

(approximately six months of the year) would therefore be required for this alternative and could

be achieved via a storage pond with an approximate storage volume of up to 81,000 m3.

5.2.11 Option #2 – On-site Leachate Evaporation

The implementation of Option #2 – On-site Leachate Evaporation would result in no to low net

effects with respect to odour, air quality, noise, groundwater, surface water, biology,

transportation and land use.


5-147


The implementation of this alternative for the disposal of leachate would result in a moderate

effect on the visual environment, as the evaporator would include a visible combustion stack.

There is a relatively high capital cost associated with this leachate treatment alternative and

relatively moderate operating costs. Due to the high-temperature operation and matrix of typical

leachates; however, frequent maintenance and/or replacement of the evaporator equipment

may be necessary, which would increase operating costs.

5.2.12 Option #3 – Off-site Effluent Discharge to Surface Water

Implementing Option #3 – Off-site Effluent Discharge to Surface Water would result in low to no

net effects in relation to odour, air quality, noise, groundwater, terrestrial environment,

transportation, land use, and the visual environment.

The assimilative capacities of both the Carp Road ditch and South Huntley Creek are

insufficient to provide a reliable and feasible alternative. Treated leachate would need to be

conveyed by forcemain to the nearest appropriate receiving watercourse, which is the Carp

River, located approximately 5 kilometres away. As a private proponent, WM would not have the

authority to expropriate land or construct private conveyance systems within public right-of-way.

This would significantly limit potential for obtaining necessary approvals (e.g., MOE, MNR,

MVCA) and make this alternative largely unfeasible. In addition, both the capital and operating

costs for this leachate alternative are expected to be relatively high.

5.2.13 Option #4 – Off-site Effluent Discharge to City of Ottawa Sanitary Sewer

Implementation of Option #4 – Off-site Effluent Discharge to City of Ottawa Sanitary Sewer

would result in no to low net effects with respect to odour, air quality, noise, groundwater,

surface water, biology, transportation, land use, and the visual environment.

There are moderate capital as well as operating costs associated with the implementation of this

leachate treatment alternative.

5.2.14 Option #5 – Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant

Implementation of Option #5 – Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment

Plant would result in no to low net effects in relation to odour, groundwater, surface water,

biology, land use, and the visual environment.


5-148


Implementation of Option #5 would require approximately 15 truck trips each day (30 cubic

meters per truck) of pretreated leachate to one or more off-site wastewater treatment facilities,

the locations of which are as yet unknown. This is expected to result in moderate net effects in

relation to air quality, noise, and transportation. Moderate capital and high operating costs are

associated with the implementation of this leachate treatment alternative.

5.2.15 Comparative Evaluation of Leachate Treatment Alternatives

Overall Ranking

The ranking of the five stand-alone leachate treatment alternatives resulting from the

comparative evaluation, as seen in Table 5-7, indicates that Option #4 – Off-site Effluent

Discharge to City of Ottawa Sanitary Sewer is the highest ranked alternative. Option #1 – On-

site Tree Irrigation and Option #2 – On-site Leachate Evaporation tied for second, Option #5 –

Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant placed third, and Option #3 –

Off-site Effluent Discharge to Surface Water was the lowest ranked.

As described previously, Option #3 is considered to be an unreliable alternative for the disposal

of leachate. The assimilative capacities of both the Carp Road ditch and South Huntley Creek

are insufficient to provide a reliable and feasible alternative. Treated leachate would need to be

conveyed by forcemain to the nearest appropriate receiving watercourse, which is the Carp

River, located approximately 5 kilometres away. As a private proponent, WM would not have the

authority to expropriate land or construct private conveyance systems within public right-of-way.

This would significantly limit potential for obtaining necessary approvals (e.g., MOE, MNR,

MVCA) and make this alternative largely unfeasible. In addition, both the capital and operating

costs for this leachate alternative are expected to be relatively high. This alternative will not be

considered further by WM.

Sensitivity Analysis

Four options remain for consideration as the preferred alternative for leachate treatment. These

options were considered both individually and in combination as systems.

5.2.15.1 Individual Alternative Analysis

The potential application of each of the four remaining individual alternative leachate treatment

methods require further consideration in terms of their ability to function in a stand-alone

capacity. The following describes the opportunities and limitations associated with the

implementation of each of these individual options in a stand-alone manner.


5-149


Option #1 – On-site Tree Irrigation

Application of this alternative would result in the effective treatment of leachate from the WCEC;

however, there are two substantial limitations associated with its implementation as a stand-

alone option. The first and most significant limitation is the seasonality associated with leachate

treatment by tree irrigation, as irrigation would only be possible from approximately May to

October. In order to dispose of leachate by tree irrigation only, six months of storage volume –

or up to approximately 81,000 cubic meters – would be required on-site. The second limitation is

the area of land required to accommodate a stand of trees sufficiently large enough to handle

the total volume of leachate produced by the landfill. As described previously, this would

necessitate a tree stand of approximately 8 hectares – or roughly one quarter of the area of the

proposed landfill footprint. The required area of land may not be available in the immediate

vicinity of the preferred landfill footprint, and additional property may need to be utilized (i.e.,

west side of William Mooney Road). If insufficient area exists on-site, pre-treated leachate will

need to be transferred to an off-site tree plantation area either via pumping and forcemain, or

via hauling with trucks. It can therefore be concluded that, although a technically viable leachate

treatment alternative, the application of Option #1 in a stand-alone capacity would have

significant limitations and would not provide operational flexibility at the WCEC.

Option #2 – On-site Leachate Evaporation

Application of this alternative would result in the effective disposal of leachate at the WCEC.

Disposal of pretreated leachate via evaporation would be possible year-round and would require

on-site disposal of only 3 to 5 percent of the initial leachate volume in the form of residual solids.

Limitations to the implementation of this option include a high capital cost and a moderate

impact on the visual environment from the combustion stack and vapour plume. An additional

limitation associated with this alternative is that there is, as yet, no precedent for the treatment

of leachate via evaporation in Ontario. Despite its viability as a stand-alone option, the

application of this leachate treatment alternative in isolation would not provide operational

flexibility at the WCEC, as there would be no contingency process in place during periods of

maintenance or downtime.

Option #4 – Off-site Effluent Discharge to City of Ottawa Sanitary Sewer

Application of this alternative would result in the effective treatment of leachate at the WCEC,

having placed first in the comparative evaluation exercise. Implementation of Option #4 would

include the use of well-proven, reliable technology, and would make use of available capacity at

the City’s ROPEC facility. Limitations associated with the implementation of this alternative at

the WCEC in a stand-alone manner would include a lack of operational flexibility should volume

and quality limits, as dictated by the City, be exceeded at any time and during periods of

maintenance.


5-150


Option #5 – Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant

This alternative is used for the disposal of leachate at many operating landfills and is a

technically feasible, stand-alone option. The location of potential facilities and their ability to

accept the volume and quality of leachate generated is unknown and it may be necessary to

utilize more than one wastewater treatment plant. Given the uncertainties associated with this

alternative, Option #5 is best implemented in the event of an emergency situation only (e.g.,

higher than normal leachate volumes, in the event of site maintenance disrupting regular

leachate treatment method, etc.). As such, Option #5 has been removed from further

consideration as a stand-alone alternative for leachate disposal.

5.2.15.2 System Alternative Analysis

Based upon the consideration of each of the four individual alternative leachate treatment

methods in terms of their ability to function in a stand-alone manner, further consideration was

given to the ability of Options #1, #2 and #4 to function in combination as systems to allow for

operational flexibility. The following describes the opportunities and limitations associated with

each of these individual options to function in a systems manner. There was no consideration

given to the application of Options #2 and Option #4 in combination as these two alternatives

provide redundant disposal for leachate.

Option #1 and Option #2

The implementation of Options #1 and #2 in tandem would allow for operational flexibility at the

WCEC. This leachate treatment system would provide for a standing contingency plan, should

treatment via evaporation be interrupted for any reason; it would have no limitations with respect

to seasonality; and the area required for the tree stand would be much smaller than that

required for the implementation of Option #1 alone, and so could be planted and constructed

on-site. A pond for seasonal storage of pretreated leachate, prior to irrigation, is not anticipated

to be a necessary component of this system.

The limitations associated with the implementation of this option would be similar to those

described in association with the implementation of Option #2 in a stand-alone capacity. These

would include: a high capital cost for the construction of the evaporator and a moderate impact

on the visual environment from the combustion stack and vapour plume.

Option #1 and Option #4

The implementation of Options #1 and #4 in tandem would also allow for maximum operational

flexibility at the WCEC. This leachate treatment system would provide for a standing


5-151


contingency plan, should discharge to the City’s sanitary sewer be interrupted for any reason; it

would have no limitations with respect to seasonality; and the area required for the tree stand

would be much smaller than that required for the implementation of Option #1 alone, and so

could be planted and constructed on-site. A pond for seasonal storage of pretreated leachate,

prior to irrigation, is not anticipated to be a necessary component of this system.

5.2.16 Preferred Alternative – Leachate Treatment

Given the ranking of Option #4 – Off-site Effluent Discharge to City of Ottawa Sanitary Sewer as

the highest ranked amongst the five leachate treatment alternatives in the comparative

evaluation, and that operational flexibility at the WCEC would be enhanced by its

implementation in combination with Option #1 – On-site Tree Irrigation, it can be concluded that

the preferred leachate treatment alternative for the WCEC is the implementation of Options #1

and #4 in combination.

The application of Option #1 and Option #2 – On-site Leachate Evaporation in combination

would also be a viable means of disposing leachate, and is considered to be the contingency

system, should the preferred alternative not be able to be implemented for any reason.

Option #5 – Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant would be

implemented as an emergency measure in the case of either combination, Options #1 and #4 or

Options #1 and #2, being unable to operate.

5.3 Identification of Landfill Footprint and Leachate Treatment Alternative

This chapter has provided the background for the generation, assessment and selection of the

preferred landfill footprint option and leachate treatment alternative. The evaluation and

analysis has resulted in the selection of Landfill Footprint Option #2, and a combination of

Option #4 and Option #1 for the preferred leachate treatment alternative. The preferred landfill

footprint and leachate treatment alternative will therefore will be carried forward for further

analysis in the Detailed Impact Assessment stage.

Figure 5-30 Option #4 Impact to Tributaries · removal or loss of the existing land uses,...

Documents

Transcript of Figure 5-30 Option #4 Impact to Tributaries · removal or loss of the existing land uses,...