Groundwater Technical Session Summary Reportwcec.wm.com/resource-documents/08_Supporting...House #3...

Appendix J Groundwater Technical Session Summary Report

Prepared by: AECOM 302 - 1150 Morrison Drive 613 820 8282 tel Ottawa, Ontario K2H 8S9 613 820 8338 fax www.aecom.com Project Number: 60116860 Date: January, 2012

Environment

Waste Management of Canada Corporation

Groundwater Technical Session – Summary Report

AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Groundwater Technical Session – Summary Report

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”)

represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports

may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time

period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and

on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. The Report is to be treated as confidential and may not be used or relied upon by third parties, except:

as agreed in writing by Consultant and Client as required by law for use by governmental reviewing agencies

Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts thereof shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.


Table of Contents Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

page

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Objective of the Technical Session.................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Date, Time and Location of the Air Technical Session ..................................................................... 1

2. Notification of Air Technical Session ......................................................................................... 2

3. Project Team Members in Attendance ........................................................................................ 2

4. Information Presented ................................................................................................................. 2

5. Session Attendance ..................................................................................................................... 3

6. Questions and Answers .............................................................................................................. 3

Appendices

Appendix A. Notification of Groundwater Technical Session Appendix B. Groundwater Technical Session Presentation Slides Appendix C. Record of Questions and Answers from the Groundwater Technical Session


1

1. Introduction Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM), owners and operators of the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (Ottawa WMF), have initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) seeking approval for a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa WMF. The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC). The proposed WCEC will be an integrated waste management facility that will include:

Waste diversion and recycling operations; Composting operations; Renewable energy facilities; Recreational lands for community uses; and, A new landfill footprint for disposal of residual waste materials.

Public and external agency consultation is a key component of EA’s and as such, has been incorporated into this process. A Notice of Commencement for the EA of this project, inviting initial input, was issued on January 5, 2011. The first round of Public Open Houses for the EA was held in January 2011 and the first round of Workshops for the EA in February 2011. The second round of Public Open Houses ran from March 29-31 and April 7, 2011 and the second round of Workshops took place on April 28 and May 5, 2011. The third round of Open Houses sessions were held November 8-10, 2011. A provision was made in the Terms of Reference (ToR) to hold “special Technical Sessions” on specific topics to provide more in-depth information on a particular topic, if required. At the request of the community, Technical Sessions on the topics of Air, Groundwater, and Property Value Protection have been arranged. The Air Technical Session was held on November 16, 2011. This Report provides a summary of the Groundwater Technical Session held on November 30, 2011.

1.1 Objective of the Technical Session

The main objective of the Groundwater Technical Session was to provide interested stakeholders with the fundamentals of groundwater in relation to landfills and to allow for a more fulsome understanding of EA materials from a technical perspective. The Groundwater Technical Session also detailed the groundwater protection measures proposed for the new landfill at the WCEC.

1.2 Date, Time and Location of the Air Technical Session

The Groundwater Technical Session was held at the WM Offices at 254 Westbrook Road, Ottawa on November 30, 2011, from 7:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. The session followed a presentation and question and answer format, with the groundwater consultant from WESA beginning by outlining basic information on groundwater, including water cycling. The WESA consultant provided a description of the geology and hydrogeology conditions at both the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (WMF) as well as at the North and West Envelopes. He then summarized the historic groundwater impacts encountered at the existing Ottawa WMF and the corrective actions taken. This was followed by a description of the groundwater protection measures proposed for the new landfill footprint at the WCEC by a WM representative. Attendees asked a number of questions of both presenters as well as other WM staff on hand.


2

2. Notification of Groundwater Technical Session Notification of the Technical Sessions (without specified dates for these sessions) was included with the notification of Open House #3, asking that interested stakeholders contact a WM representative in order to be added to the project contact list to receive further information. This notice was published during the weeks of October 17, 2011 and October 24, 2011 in the Stittsville News, the West Carleton Weekender, the Kanata Kourier Standard, EMC Kanata, EMC Stittsville and EMC West Carleton. The notice was also provided to all interested persons who are on WM’s stakeholder distribution list through an E-blast, posting on the project website at http://wcec.wm.com, and direct mailing to all addresses within the K0A 1L0, K2S, and K2T postal codes on October 19, 2011. The date and location for the Groundwater Technical Session, as well as a sign-up sheet, were provided at Open House #3 sessions on November 8-10, 2011, at the Air Technical Session on November 16, 2011, and at Workshop #3 on November 23, 2011. An E-blast was distributed on November 17, 2011 to all interested persons who are on WM’s stakeholder distribution list detailing the availability of public consultation materials on the project website as well as advertising Workshop #3 on November 23, 2011 and the Groundwater Technical Session on November 30, 2011. Notification material can be found in Appendix A.

3. Project Team Members in Attendance The following project team members were in attendance at the Groundwater Technical Session:

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 – WM OFFICES, OTTAWA

WM Consulting Team Tim Murphy Bill McDonough Cathy Smithe Ross Wallace Remi Godin Chris Prucha Jody Falls

AECOM Larry Fedec

WESA

Dave Harding

4. Information Presented Information presented at the Groundwater Technical Session was in the form of a slide presentation, which included the following:

Outline of basic information on groundwater, including water cycling and a glossary of terms; Description of groundwater flow, recharge, and discharge; Outline of existing geology and hydrogeology conditions at the current Ottawa WMF and the North and West

Envelopes; Historic groundwater impacts and corrective actions taken; and Groundwater protection for the proposed landfill.


3

A copy of the presentation is included in Appendix B.

5. Session Attendance There were a total of 29 attendees at the Groundwater Technical Session. Attendees were encouraged to provide written comments on the comment sheets provided. With the exception of those that requested to be left off, all individuals and/or agency representatives who signed in with their contact information were added to the project-specific contact database. This database will be used during the remaining phases of the study to contact/inform interested public and key stakeholders of study issues and events.

6. Questions and Answers The questions asked and answers provided at the Technical Session, as well as comment sheets and follow-up emails and associated responses received as of December 31, 2011 are provided in Appendix C. Please note that questions and answers were recorded verbatim by a representative of WM.

APPENDIX A NOTIFICATION OF GROUNDWATER TECHNICAL SESSION

Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint

at the West Carleton Environmental Centre OPEN HOUSE #3 and WORKSHOP #3

Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) is undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA) seeking approval for a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (Ottawa WMF). The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC).

The proposed WCEC will be an integrated waste management facility that will include:

A new landfill footprint; Waste diversion and recycling operations; Composting operations; Renewable energy facilities; and, Recreational lands for community uses.

The new landfill footprint is the only component of the WCEC that requires EA approval under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The proposed location of the WCEC and the new landfill footprint component is within the City of Ottawa in the area shown on the map below. The purpose of the EA is to study the potential environmental effects (positive or negative) of the proposed new landfill footprint. Key components of an EA include consultation with government agencies and the public; consideration and evaluation of alternatives; and the management of potential environmental effects. Conducting an EA promotes good environmental planning before decisions are made about a proposal.

Earlier in 2011, WM held a series of Open Houses and Workshops with the public to review the preliminary Existing Conditions and Comparative Evaluation Methodology and Criteria that would be used to assess and compare the Alternative Landfill Footprints that are being considered as part of the EA. Open House #3 The purpose of Open House #3 is to provide the public with an opportunity to review the final Existing Conditions, assessment and comparative evaluation of the Alternative Landfill Footprints, and identification of a Preferred Landfill Footprint. In addition, WM will provide information about the ongoing EA process and related consultation activities. WM has scheduled Open House #3 events the week of November 8th–10th, 2011 for the following dates, times, and locations:

Tuesday November 8, 2011 Wednesday November 9, 2011 Thursday November 10, 2011 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Carp Agricultural Hall 3790 Carp Road,

Carp

Kanata Recreation Complex 100 Walter Baker Place,

Kanata

Stittsville & District Community Centre 10 Warner Colpitts Lane,

Stittsville

Workshop #3 The purpose of Workshop #3 is to provide the public with an opportunity to give input on Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprints and the identification of a Preferred Landfill Footprint. WM has scheduled Workshop #3 on November 23rd, 2011 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Carp Agricultural Hall (3790 Carp Road, Carp).

Technical Sessions As requested by the community, WM also intends to hold a series of technical sessions. These sessions will be scheduled in the upcoming weeks and notification will be provided on the project website and via email to our project contact list. To be added to the project contact list, please contact Cathy Smithe at the email address/number below.

In addition to attending the public open houses, workshop, and technical sessions you are invited to submit your comments via the project website (http://wcec.wm.com), mail, email or fax to the addresses/numbers published below. We will also receive your comments on our project information line at (613) 836-8610.

Ross Wallace Site Manager

Waste Management 2301 Carp Road

Carp, Ontario, K0A 1L0 Fax: (613) 831-8928

E-mail: [email protected]

Cathy Smithe Community Relations Manager

Waste Management 254 Westbrook Road

Carp, Ontario, K0A 1L0 Fax: (613) 831-2849

E-mail: [email protected]

Please note that information related to this Study will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments received will become part of the public record and may be included in Study documentation prepared for public review.

Get Involved….Have Your Say!

http://wcec.wm.com/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

From: Smithe, Cathy - WBK Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:29 PM To: Smithe, Cathy - WBK Subject: WCEC Website Postings Hello We have held the three Open House #3 meetings and our first Technical Session, which covered the topic of “Air”. The WCEC website has been updated with the following files: Open House #3 - Posted on Nov 4, 2011

Notice of Open House #3 Open House #3 Comment Sheet - New - Nov. 9, 2011

Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options

Chapter 1-2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5-6 Attachment A - Report Attachment A - Figures Attachment A - Appendix Attachment B - Net Effect Table Attachment C - Technical Memos

Open House #3 Boards

Pages 1-24 Pages 25-44

Assessment of Alternative Leachate Treatment Options

Report

Workshop #3 - Posted on Nov. 17, 2011

Workbook

EA Process Overview - Where Are They Now? - Posted on Nov. 15, 2011

Open House #1 Process Boards

Open House #2 Process Boards Open House #3 Process Boards

Technical Sessions Air Technical Session - Posted Nov 17, 2011

WCEC - Air Technical Session - Slides 1-21.pdf (1.3 MB) WCEC - Air Technical Session - Slides 22-35.pdf (1.5 MB) WCEC - Air Technical Session - Slides 36-49.pdf (2.5 MB) WCEC - Air Technical Session - Slides 50-61.pdf (2 MB) WCEC - Air Technical Session - Slides 1-61.pdf (5 MB)

WCEC - Air Technical Comment Sheet (5 MB)

Please visit our website to look these files. The link is http://wcec.wm.com/ On Wednesday, November 23, Workshop #3 is being held. The meeting is at the Carp Agricultural Hall in Carp and will be from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The Workbook for this meeting is on the WCEC website. The next Technical Session is on Groundwater and it is on Wednesday, November 30 at the Waste Management office at 254 Westbrook Road. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. and ends at 9:00 p.m. If you would like to attend either or both of these sessions, please email me or call 613-836-8610 to register. Thank you. Cathy Smithe Community Relations Manager Ottawa Operations / West Carleton Environmental Centre Waste Management of Canada Corp. Phone: 613-836-8612 Fax: 613-831-2849 Our website http://wcec.wm.com Visitez notre site internet http://wcec.wm.com The recovery of landfill gas, coupled with the power generated from the conversion of solid waste in our waste-to-energy plants, saves the equivalent of more than 13 million barrels of oil.

APPENDIX B GROUNDWATER TECHNICAL SESSION PRESENTATION SLIDES

West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC)

New Landfill Environmental Assessment (EA)

Groundwater – Technical Session

November 30, 2011

West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC)

New Landfill Environmental Assessment (EA)

Agenda

Groundwater - Technical Session

November 30, 2011

• Basic groundwater information

• Existing groundwater conditions

• Historical impacts & corrective actions

• Groundwater protection at proposed landfill

• Questions & answers

Basic information about groundwater

Fine-grained sand

Sand with some gravel

Bedding planes

Bedding planes

Fractures (joints)

Permeability & Hydraulic Conductivity

• Permeability: a property of the soil or rock; it is related

to the particle size, packing, grain roundness, how well

the pore spaces are connected, etc.

• Hydraulic conductivity: the ability of water to flow

through a layer of soil or rock (it is a property of both the

medium & fluid).

Aquifer

A geologic formation (sand, gravel, fractured rock)

that contains enough permeable material to yield

sufficient quantities of water to wells and springs.

Aquitard A saturated geologic formation with low permeability

(silt, clay, glacial till) that does not yield water freely

to a well or spring.

Unconfined Aquifer

A permeable formation extending from ground

surface downward to an aquitard

-a “water table aquifer”

Confined Aquifer A permeable formation with aquitards as confining

units top and bottom;

The water pressure surface may be above the top

of the aquifer

Groundwater Flow

• Groundwater flows due to hydraulic pressures:

– The “hydraulic head” is the elevation of the water

table at a given point.

– Groundwater flows from areas of higher head to

areas of lower head.

– The hydraulic gradient (defined by three points)

represents the slope of the water table.

Recharge & Discharge

• Groundwater and surface water are linked:

– Precipitation infiltrates into the soil & rock.

– Natural discharge occurs into lakes, streams,

wetlands, springs, etc.

– Artificial discharge is created by pumping from

wells

Existing conditions (geology & hydrogeology)

Groundwater in the Study Area:

• The aquifer (groundwater-bearing unit) of primary

interest for monitoring the landfill is the shallow

unconfined aquifer.

• This consists of the sand-gravel overburden below the

water table, and the upper portion of fractured limestone

bedrock. The deeper bedrock is less permeable.

• Locally, the shallow aquifer is referred to as the

overburden-shallow bedrock zone.

• Groundwater flow is primarily horizontal.

Summary of Geology & Groundwater:

• Groundwater investigations have been undertaken at

the site since 1987.

• There is a good understanding of the surficial and

bedrock geology (locally, regionally).

• Unit of primary interest for potential migration of

contaminants is the overburden-shallow bedrock zone.

• Permeable overburden sediments and weathered

bedrock surface promotes lateral flow within the shallow

zone.

Historical groundwater impacts and the

corrective actions taken

How do we assess impact?

• Monitoring wells on and around the landfill site

• Chemistry – indicator parameters

• Impacts from the historical operations extend onto the

downgradient properties (which are controlled as CAZs)

• How do we use potassium in this analysis?

Corrective Action:

• The downgradient groundwater impacts are the result of

former operations at the landfill.

• WM (and predecessors Laidlaw, CWS) have taken

corrective action to resolve this issue.

• Components of the corrective action:

– Liners and leachate collection system

– Purge well system

– Air barrier system

– Improved gas collection system

– Contaminant attenuation zones (CAZs)

• Purge well system – 11 pumping wells along eastern boundary of site

– Creates a “hydraulic curtain” designed to cut off the source of

contaminants

– Monitor water levels and chemistry at system and on

downgradient properties

– Continuous water level monitoring system

– Stable to decreasing concentrations means system is effective

Summary of Corrective Action

• The zone of groundwater impacts is well-defined and can be

monitored with the existing monitoring well network.

• Selected parameters are used to evaluate leachate impacts

downgradient from the landfill.

• No drinking water supplies are located within or near to the zone of

impacts.

• Stable or decreasing concentrations are being observed

downgradient of the source area.

• MOE: “Leachate impacts to groundwater are not a public health

concern”.

Other Related Groundwater Information

• The watermain installation in 1988.

• Natural iron staining at groundwater discharge zones.

• Watermain information:

– Requested in 1986 by MOE following well water complaints

from the industrial park.

– Landfill owner at the time was Newill Realty.

– Laidlaw purchased the landfill at the end of 1987.

– Watermain was constructed between August and November

1988; a detailed hydrogeologic investigation began in early

1988.

• Watermain information (cont’d):

– Original (1987) assessment was based on conductivity and

assumed groundwater flow directions; no bedrock wells.

– May 1988 WESA preliminary report: “..groundwater flows in an

easterly direction in both the surficial deposits and the bedrock

aquifer, not in a southeasterly direction, as we believed on the

basis of preliminary data”.

– It was known at the time of waterline completion that the

groundwater in the industrial park and Lloydalex Crescent was

not impacted by the landfill.

• Natural iron staining at groundwater discharge zones should not be

used to decide that groundwater is contaminated.

Natural iron staining

Groundwater protection at proposed landfill

Questions & answers

APPENDIX C RECORD OF QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FROM THE GROUNDWATER TECHNICAL SESSION

Groundwater Technical Session November 30, 2011

1

Forum Where Issue was Raised Public Issue Raised Response Provided

1. Groundwater Technical Session

Information and emails from 1987 state that wells in the Lloydalex area and the front of the West Carleton Industrial Park were impacted. Member of the public indicated that WESA previously stated that groundwater was contaminated.

The area is not impacted by the landfill because the groundwater flow is not in that direction. At the time of watermain installation, the direction of groundwater flow had not been determined.


Are other landfills constructed like this (i.e., using Generic Design Option II)?

Not in Ontario but there are examples in the United States. Further investigation following the technical session identified that the Niagara Waste Systems Limited (NWSL) Landfill located in Thorold, Ontario was approved and is being constructed based upon the Generic Design Option II in Ontario Regulation 232/98.


In the US landfills constructed like this one, what is the volume of leachate pumped out in the top leachate pipe?

The leachate pipe in the top liner layer pumps out leachate continuously and removes thousands of gallons of leachate.


In the US landfills constructed like this one, what is found in the bottom liner layer?

Moisture from the clay and small amounts of water that are tested for contamination.


See this as a static gradient from top to bottom. Where does the water table occur? Where does the west to east groundwater flow go?

The groundwater flows below the liner system. The liner system is constructed entirely above the water table.


In that context, there should be no leachate going into the groundwater.

Yes. A groundwater monitoring system will be used to measure this. There will be monitoring around the new proposed landfill.


If you install the groundwater monitoring system before the landfill is built you can determine baseline conditions.

There are wells around the old landfill that provide information on baseline conditions. Additional monitoring wells will be required for monitoring of the new landfill.


If the landfill is approved, the detailed monitoring will have to be approved in the next step of the process.

It will be.


A baseline needs to be measured and then a change would have to be investigated.

Leachate pipes, the groundwater from the new site, and the groundwater from the old site will be monitored.


Is the contamination along Richardson Side Road being monitored?

There are monitoring wells north of the existing landfill. Conditions from the existing site and along the northern boundary of WM property are known.


There are contaminated wells now. Not along the north property boundary. Concentrations in the groundwater that flows away from the landfill site are examined.


Wells 63 and 64 are contaminated. Why is the landfill not responsible for their contamination?

Well W63 is not located along the property boundary. At well W64, it is believed that the impacts are coming from storm water.


If it is known that the contamination is coming from storm water ponds, there must be contamination.

Bio-solids were stored in that area of the site since the late 1980s.


2



I would like the list of contaminate wells. We will get them for you. Groundwater quality is monitored on-site at the following locations north of the unlined footprint:

P79, P80-1 – immediately adjacent to the footprint W63 – adjacent to a stormwater pond, central to the site W62-2, W64 – near the northern boundary of the site

The results from these monitoring locations are document in the Annual Reports for the landfill, and a detailed discussion of the water quality is presented in the reports. The following is a summary of the monitoring results:

Monitoring well P79 shows impacts from the landfill; P80-1 may show slight impacts although the concentrations have generally remained stable since 2000. These wells are adjacent to the unlined landfill footprint.

Monitoring well W63 is located in the former Dibblee Pit area, north of the landfill and east of the stormwater recharge pond. This well shows impacts; however, the source of the elevated concentrations at W63 is believed to be due to the stormwater recharge pond or the former biosolids storage in this area, and not from the landfill.

The water quality at W62-2 reflects background groundwater conditions; this well is not impacted.

Monitor W64 is situated at the downgradient end of an area of ponded water that collects runoff from a swale that originates at the northwest corner of the landfill footprint. The concentrations of indicator parameters at W64 are slight elevated; however, the 2010 results are generally consistent with the original (2004) results.


3



The MOE says the liner is great. What is the lifespan of the liner system? What are the qualifications that the MOE would put on this installation?

Attendees were shown a life-size cross-section of the liner system. Attention was drawn to the various components of the liner system, including the granular material, filter fabric, and primary HDPE liner. Ontario Regulation 232/98 specifies in Section 10 that the service life for the primary HDPE liner (1.5 mm) is 150 years and the service life for the secondary HDPE liner (2.0 mm) is 350 years. Regulation 232/98 requires that a design report be prepared for the landfill site, which contains details on the construction quality control and assurance procedures. The quality assurance plan specifies test methods, frequency of sampling, and procedures to be adopted in the event specifications are not met during the construction of each component of the liner system.


Liability is being transferred to future generations rather than passing on a preferred environmental situation.

The liner system is modelled to ensure that it will last beyond the contaminating lifespan of the landfill. In the model, we fail different components of the liner system at different times, but overall the liner system remains intact longer than the contaminating life of the landfill. With this system of modeling, you see the entire leachate being removed from the site. By the time the entire liner system fails, the contaminating lifespan has been exceeded, and the leachate has no contamination left in it.


Why was the liner not put under the entire existing landfill? How are the plastic pieces joined?

Waste was deposited on the back two thirds of the existing landfill first. The liner was put in the front section before waste was placed. Two pieces of the liner are joined with a heat fusion welder. It is done twice and then it is checked with a machine to check the seal. Sections are then cut out and sent to a lab for checking. The results are sent to the MOE for their approval before any waste is placed on the site.


How big is the sheet? The liner rolls are 20 feet wide by 200 feet long.


Was the liner “put in” in order to take biosolids from the Region?

Cannot comment on why the liner was put in.


Is leachate very gunky material? What is the porosity of the rock that will be used in the new landfill? Will leachate clog the stone?

The material is tested by the addition of leachate to ensure stone does not get destroyed.


Everything gets clogged up and the pumps have to be cleaned up. How is the whole thing cleaned out to keep it

The pipes are cleaned. The pumps are cleaned every year and pulled out every second year for testing. Design porosity of stones


4


moving? and holes in pipes are monitored properly. 22. Groundwater

Technical Session The leachate will migrate up into the garbage. There is a slope to the leachate collection system. It will eventually

make its way down to the sump. Filter fabric may clog up and cause a slow down in the amount of leachate going through the fabric; however, it will not clog entirely. Leachate will be collected and the leachate collection system will continue to work.


I assume everything decomposes over time and leachate will also do that. How long does it take for leachate to decompose?

MOE specifies that the contaminating life span for a landfill with that liner is 360 years.


Will everything last 360 years? Organics in leachate will break down quite quickly. MOE uses a very conservative approach to when things will break down.


Treated wood will take a long to break down and that is the kind of thing that gets into leachate and gets people concerned about the leachate.

Yes, treated wood contains arsenic, copper and other metals. The leachate system is designed to be in place long enough to collect these types of contaminants.


So the leachate system will work. In the US, 30 years of post closure is acceptable and in Ontario, it is 300 years.


This system is designed to meet the US conditions so the 30 years is too short for this landfill. We’re talking about two different things – post-closure period of 30 years is different from a contaminating lifespan.

At the end of the 30 year period in US, things are finished. In Ontario, the standards are longer.


How long is the system designed to last? There is a difference in theory between US and Ontario.


Will the liner system last for 300 years? MOE determines the standards. The various components that make up the system have different life spans. The total life span is calculated based on the individual life spans of each system component.


The US regulations are for 30 years and the Ontario regulations are for 300 years? There are different standards?

In the US, a different approach is taken. The MOE requires a more rigorous design approach.


I think you should regroup and provide us with a written statement and advise us that this liner is the same as the US liners for 25 years and what the MOE states about the liner.

Ontario Regulation 232/98 specifies in Section 10 that the service life for the primary HDPE liner (1.5 mm) is 150 years and the service life for the secondary HDPE liner (2.0 mm) is 350 years.


Who is taking the minutes? Tim Murphy and Cathy Smithe of Waste Management.

33. Groundwater Please make sure that is noted in the comments. WM has It is no different than what is in the other landfill. The Rump landfill


5


Technical Session said that the Rump landfill has material other than construction material.

intended to be a construction demolition site. There is some solid waste in it.


We are taking the leachate from the landfill. What is being done with the leachate?

Leachate from the existing landfill is intercepted by 11 purge wells. It is pumped down Carp Road to Timbermere and is then pumped to Pickard Sewage Treatment Centre.


Is the leachate treated before discharging it to the City sewer? Leachate is required to meet Sewer Use By-Law standards prior to discharge.


Who is liable if the leachate causes the sewer pumps to break and flood basements in the area.

WM has an agreement with the City that allows the discharge of the leachate to the municipal sewer system.


Please show me the Rump landfill and the purge wells. I live on Rothbourne and I have heard all the stories – discharging to a sewer system and problems can happen – he is hesitant that we are saying anything correct – this could be a dog and pony show.

There are no indications that Rothbourne Road is contaminated by the landfill.


Is there a contingency plan, such as trucking leachate? Yes.


Will you manage this site for 300 years? We have given the MOE a letter of credit to ensure that the site is maintained. As long as WM is solvent, WM is responsible for this site. WM monitors and maintains all of our landfills.


There are lots of waste sites and that have been abandoned and are now the responsibility of cities/provinces.

The Province of Ontario has money entrusted by WM to continue to do whatever monitoring is required should Wm no longer be in business. We will actively monitor the site as long as the MOE tell us to. Every landfill we have in this province we are still monitoring or operating. In the US, you are told after 30 years what you must continue to monitor. There is far less liability to WM if we monitor and manage sites.


I have heard about fractures, the bedrock has to be cracked with fissures in it. In the area where there is a dome in the bedrock, are there fissures and faults underlying the back 2/3 of site?

The glaciers have left an undulating surface from erosion. The elevated bedrock area under the landfill has not been pushed up from below; it is at a lower elevation than further to the southwest; it is simply part of an erosional surface. There is no indication of fissures or fractures caused by pressure from below.


6



What is the quantity of leachate that will come from the new site?

That is part of the detailed impact assessment for the preferred footprint. Different leachate options are being considered. This is part of the next step in the EA process.


Is there any contamination to the west of the existing site? At the extreme westward corner there is a west flow, but very quickly it turns to the east. There is no evidence of any leachate impacts to the west.


Iron staining can be an indication of leachate. Yes, it can be an indication; however, it cannot be used alone to say that there is contamination in a location.


You misled us. No, it has been inferred by others that contamination is present from the landfill because there is iron staining. I wanted to note that staining can occur from natural conditions.


How much mapping of the karstic effects has been done? Karst is a type of feature that is caused by dissolution of the rock. We have looked at the quarries. Every time we drill a borehole, we look for it.


Did you identify any surface expressions of karstic effects in the area?

We have never seen a sign of karstic features. We have also done computer modeling of the site where we assume there is no karst, and the results compare well with the observations we have of groundwater flow. All of these lines of evidence indicate that there are no karstic effects.


Under US regulations what is the minimum distance from homes?

That is set by State regulations – typically, number is 100 meters or 300 feet – set back requirement on ground water wells – different theories to the regulations. Everything we do is based on MOE requirements. Ontario Regulation 232/98 states that the minimum on-site buffer area is at least 30 m wide at every point.


If there is a high volume of pumping in the area of the landfill does that cause a problem?

Depending on the location and the amount of pumping, we may see an effect on the direction of groundwater flow. For example, if Laurysen were to install a large well and pump thousands of gallons of water, it would likely affect the groundwater flow in that area of the site.


If Karson Kartage are pumping a million liters a day, does this affect the landfill?

The groundwater contour map that we have produced is based on the observations we have made of hydraulic head on the site, with the current pumping conditions from other properties around the site. If K & K are pumping, this is already reflected in the groundwater contours that we see on-site.

51. Groundwater What is being pumped from the landfill? Every day we pump 120 gallons per minute. It averages to 160,000


7


Technical Session gallons per day. 52. Groundwater

Technical Session What is the relationship between WM and WESA? WESA is hired on a contractual basis to do the environmental

monitoring and the groundwater studies for the Environmental Assessment.


Is there a mechanism in place that will have my well monitored with no charge to me?

There are no services offered by either WM or WESA. The City of Ottawa will do the test for free. They will check for bacteria.


Want a baseline level, so that in 20 or 30 years we will know if there is a problem. What is the cost for this testing?

You can go to a lab and have your water tested. It is about $150 for a very good indication of the water quality in your well (general characteristics and a metals scan). Homeowners with wells should sample their water at least twice per year for bacterial analysis. This is to ensure that there is no surface water or septic bed contamination getting into the well. Bacterial analyses are done free of charge by Ottawa Public Health. You need special bottles that can be picked up; the instructions for bottles and sampling requirements are at the website here: http://www.ottawa.ca/env_water/water_sewer/water_wells /wells/testing/ index_en.html Additional information about well water can be obtained by testing for chemical parameters. Good tests to do are a “General Characteristics Suite” (~$100) and a “Metals Scan” (~$50 for 20 elements). These tests are available from a lab such as Exova at 146 Colonnade Road, Unit #8 (613-727-5692). They should be contacted for bottle requirements and to confirm prices: http://www.exova.com/industry-sectors/environmental/by-laboratory/ottawa-canada If you have a water softener or other treatment system, it is important to sample the water before it goes through treatment. Once you get your results, you can compare the concentrations to the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS). These are published by the Ontario Ministry of Environment, and set standards for large public water supplies such as the City of Ottawa municipal supply. They are also useful to compare to individual water wells; however,


8


some of the guidelines such as hardness and alkalinity, etc. may not be met in natural groundwater coming from limestone. The ODWS are here: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/ @ene/@resources/documents/resource/std01_079707.pdf


Will WM pay for lab testing of well water? No.


Concerned about regulations. It is fine technology and government approved. Will there be a catastrophic plan in place? Who is responsible if the regulations are not up to snuff?

Regulation 232/98 requires that a leachate contingency plan be developed to address any unexpected but possible upset occurrences. WM is required to provide the MOE with financial assurance to ensure funds are available for these contingencies. The Rump landfill and the existing landfill were built to the regulations of their time. There have been problems and we have had to fix them. For example, there was a change in Regulations regarding groundwater and it created an issue for us on properties east of Carp Road. We acquired the land and established a CAZ in order to manage the groundwater issue.


I think you both have stated that the regulations are not perfect. In thirty years we may find out the liner system is not correct. We could be looking at the same scenario in thirty years.

We took action when there were problems.


Nothing has been done – you are still in the 60’s or 70’s. We have to manage when things happen.


Another means of diluting the answer. We are not passing on the problems.


Every time you flush your toilet, you are affecting the sewer system. We gave the agreement about the water main to Scott Moffat. When are you going to attach the houses on Rothbourne to the sewer system? How do you manage the leachate to the sewer?

We manage it and put it in the sewer system. The leachate comes from either the purge well or the landfill and we put it in the sewer.


9



What processing do you do to the leachate? We collect leachate from the entire site and it gets put in the sewer. We have to take samples on a weekly basis and if they do not meet Sewer Use By-Law standards the City will shut us off.


If the water quality surpasses Sewer Use By-Law standards, what do you do with it?

Leachate is then stored until it is able to be discharged.


A WESA representative said we will not be connected to the water main.

The groundwater from the landfill does not move towards Rothbourne.


You are pumping leachate at 14 litres per second. How are the contaminate levels being brought down before you shipping?

Leachate is treated to strip out the methane and is then pumped to the sanitary sewer.


Are you taking leachate from farther west than the landfill now? You are assuming there is something wrong with the effluent. Things do not add up – the MOE is full of it. You can discharge some levels of contaminate – when they strip the methane the water is good – all mixed together it is okay.

We collect leachate from the entire site and it gets put in the sewer. We have to take samples on a weekly basis and if they do not meet Sewer Use By-Law standards the City will shut us off.


WM is doing it correctly. We are responsible for managing the water from the purge wells and the leachate from the liner. The condensate is from the gas wells.


The agreement was signed 13 years prior to the leachate system being put in place. Resident concerned that he does not have service to the watermain. When this system fails how long is it going to take to fix it? Concerned about the political effort when this fails.

In accordance with Section 18 of Ontario Regulation 232/98, WM is required to post financial assurance to the MOE to ensure that funds are available to close the landfill and to carry out all expected post-closure care activities.


Newill Realty had the insurance in place – we are still on well water and the Karson pit is pumping a hundred million litres a day. What is in the financial assurance that will help us?

In accordance with Section 18 of Ontario Regulation 232/98, WM is required to post financial assurance to the MOE to ensure that funds are available to close the landfill and to carry out all expected post-closure care activities.


We have to watch this to make sure we are not affected. Documentation is hard to get. Requested information from WM last week and it was not sent out.

We did receive this request. If you got this information without any context you would not understand it. The purpose of this session is for you to hear what we have to say, ask questions, and receive the answers. Now that you have heard the information, you can send in your questions tomorrow or later.


10



One comment raised some concern: this is the design application for a hazardous waste site - can this site be changed to a hazardous waste site?

We have no hazardous waste sites in Ontario.


Should we be on the lookout in case you to want to change to a hazardous waste facility?

It has to be a site specific design for a hazardous waste facility.


Is there a technical session about the treatment and disposal of leachate from the site?

We are looking at several options for leachate treatment. In the next step of the process we have to compare the options to one another and identify a preferred leachate treatment option.


We need a technical session on Leachate options. Are you going to put the landfill on rock?

The landfill and all of its components will be constructed above the water table. There is another layer of clay as well above the water table.

74. Post-Technical Session Email

There was one thing not addressed last night. Can David comment in the summary report for the session; on the high and very high aquifer vulnerability designations found in several reports done for the city.

Since aquifer vulnerability was not discussed at the Groundwater Technical Session, I will provide comment here and not in the Summary Report. The reports done for the City that you refer to were among those consulted and referenced in the Existing Conditions Report for Geology and Hydrogeology. These reports include the following: Dillon Consulting Limited. 2004. Carp Road Corridor

Groundwater Study. Report prepared for City of Ottawa. Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region. 2009a. Highly

Vulnerable Aquifers in the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region. Draft Groundwater Study Findings. June 2009.

Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region. 2009b.

Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas in the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region. Draft Groundwater Study Findings. June 2009.

Robinson Consultants Inc. 2004. Carp River

Watershed/Subwatershed Study. Report prepared for City of Ottawa.

Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. and CH2M Hill Canada Ltd. 2001.

Preliminary Evaluation of Relative Aquifer Vulnerability: City of


11


Ottawa (formerly the Region of Ottawa-Carleton). Report prepared for City of Ottawa.

The information contained in these reports is considered in our assessment of existing conditions within the Study Area. The high aquifer vulnerability is due to the fact that the area is a zone of recharge, the aquifer is shallow and unconfined, and the sediments are permeable. In the section on Physical Hydrogeology within the Regional Study Area (Section 2.1.3.1 of the Existing Conditions Report), we present the following: Locally, groundwater recharge occurs along the sand and gravel ridge and upland areas extending north and south of the existing landfill (Dillon, 2004; Robinson Consultants, 2004). Overall, the North and West Envelopes are interpreted as having strong to weak downward gradients, indicating that these areas are considered recharge zones. In a regional aquifer vulnerability study completed for the City of Ottawa, the glaciofluvial and beach ridge deposits in the study area are identified as having a high to very high intrinsic vulnerability (Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. and CH2M Hill, 2001). A high groundwater recharge potential and relatively shallow depth to the water table are the principal factors in this determination of aquifer vulnerability. The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region has also completed an analysis of aquifer vulnerability within the Mississippi River and Rideau River watersheds as part of the Drinking Water Source Protection Program (Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region, 2009a). The Regional Study Area, with the exception of the clay plains found east of Oak Creek Road toward Carp River (refer to Figure 4) is classified as a high vulnerability aquifer, due to the shallow water table and permeable soil conditions. The area is also classified as a significant groundwater recharge area (Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region, 2009b). Closer to Carp River, groundwater discharge zones occur, with


12


upward hydraulic gradients becoming more pronounced in proximity to Carp River (Dillon, 2004). Intrinsic aquifer vulnerability in this area is classified as low to medium (Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. and CH2M Hill, 2001). These facts were all considered in our assessment of site conditions and the development of the conceptual site model, including the description of the hydrostratigraphic units presented in the Existing Conditions Report.


I thought the discussion on the liner was very good even if there are a few questions around them. I am concerned over the discussion on existing conditions however. The sense I got from the WESA representative was that he was just too invested in this to be credible. He was particularly vague around possible contamination on the north of the existing landfill. I don't think you have bottomed-out the situation there. Furthermore, I think you need to because it otherwise you come across like your attitude amounts to "Let's not look too hard because we might find something bad."

I am glad you found the session useful. Although WESA personnel have a long history of providing hydrogeological consulting services for the site, they remain an independent third party consultant and I have full confidence that their professional opinions are unbiased. Regarding your concern about potential contamination north of the current landfill footprint, we are required to assess this as part of our ongoing environmental monitoring as well as part of our Detailed Impact Analysis for the preferred new landfill footprint. The community will see the Detailed Impact Analysis information at our next series of Open Houses and they will have an opportunity to provide further comment and questions at that time and throughout EA.


In the session report can you expand on the question of hazardous waste landfill that was raised. I understand that it was said that a hazardous waste landfill would require a site specific EA. The point of clarification I would like to know is if the proposed liner system is recommended for hazardous waste in the US would it be possible for a site specific EA to be carried out at the Carp ste, based on the fact that the liner meets requirements in the US and currently there are no regs. in Ontario.

An individual EA would be required for a proposed hazardous waste landfill in Ontario. The liner system recommended for hazardous waste landfills in the USA is similar to proposed liner system for the new landfill footprint at the WCEC. However, as stated in Section 3 – Purpose of the Proposed Undertaking of the approved Terms of Reference (TOR), “the purpose of the proposed undertaking is to provide additional disposal capacity for solid non-hazardous waste at the West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC) in the form of a new landfill footprint”. I trust this answers your question.

77. Groundwater Technical Session Comment Sheet

Need to ensure clarification of liner design parameters for Carp Road vs. design parameters of existing liners in use in the USA (i.e., how MOE requirements, assumptions and calculations differ from the USA installed, constructions. Also, how many installations actually existing and how many are in the same latitude or north of Carp Road site.

The proposed new landfill footprint will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 232/98. Niagara Waste Systems Limited (NWSL) Landfill located in Thorold, Ontario was approved and is being constructed based upon the Generic Design Option II in Ontario Regulation 232/98.

78. Groundwater Good source of information and Q&A. Comment acknowledged.


13


Technical Session Comment Sheet

Too late. Should have been earlier in EA session to provide context for intelligent community questions and comment. Should have been advertised through news paper ads to assure full community participation. Venue was okay but it was intimidating for some. There was no mention of high and very high aquifer vulnerability. No mention of Reasonable Use Guidelines. Too much reference to U.S. examples of double liners no examples from Canadian (Ontario)

In our prior EA stages, we have attempted to provide information that is appropriate for the issues being covered at the time, and these efforts have garnered meaningful stakeholder input. The Technical Sessions present another forum for public dialogue. Stakeholders can give very productive and valuable input based upon their individual and collective knowledge, interests, and concerns about how this project may affect their community. In terms of the timing and venues for the consultations, we have always strived to strike a balance here. Notification of Technical Sessions was provided in prior newspaper advertisements and stakeholders were directed to our website for further information. Comment acknowledged. Comment acknowledged. Comment acknowledged. Comment acknowledged.

Groundwater Technical Session Summary Reportwcec.wm.com/resource-documents/08_Supporting...House #3...

Documents

Transcript of Groundwater Technical Session Summary Reportwcec.wm.com/resource-documents/08_Supporting...House #3...